The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

reply to post by Zenithar


edit ....I dont understand what is happening so I tried to repost cause I thought my links were not allowed ...
I know that right after this thread started the topic was on coast to coast
discussing theorys on how old man is... I can relate to this theory as that is what I was trying to get across in my post.


[edit on 2-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

reply to post by NorthStargal52


The guys name was Michael Cremo He was discussing his continuing work on forbidden archaeology & artifacts. I thought it was a good show.. He discussed (Time) that went back billions of years. What I found interesting is all the missing mysterious artifacts.. there is a lot of truth to this ..people have been stealing artifacts as far back as BC.. so now when we want to prove something it's been hijacked.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

[edit on 2-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

You say adaption drives evolution. when really it evolution that drives adaption, adaption is simply the result of the evolution, hence it is not adaption that drives evolution but vice versa..

Evolution IS adaption to survive. Species dont just evole co-incidentally in perfect synchronicity to its surrounding enviroment.
The changing of enviroment for example is NOT predictable to the species, So we say it evolves to adapt, or that its adaption
is evolution. This is just semantics.

What your saying in effect is:
Given my example Of black snakes mutating to have a smaller gape so they cannot eat cane toads that are large enough, and
hence contain enough concentrated toxins to kill them, since the introduction of cane toads 70 years ago,
Is that they would have evolved and mutated in this fashion anyway and the introduction of toads to australia by humans is purely
coincidental, that evolutions 'plan' was to mutate snakes to have a smaller gape anyway.
Yet you say that you accept calling mutations 'random'.
If there is no requirement to adapt (no 'need') then species general dont (much) like crocodilians, turtles, and ceolacanth fish.
Therefore why is not acceptable to say that adaption, or the need to adapt, drives evolutionary mutation of genetic information?

therefore, it is unpredictable mutations that drive adaption

I rather think adaption drives unpredictable mutations, not the otherway around, see above.

Individual animals don't adapt, species do.

correct, I never said otherwise. Perhaps you misinterprate what I write.
You also seem to deliberately ignore self evident adaption. Im saying adaption, or the need to do so,
drives the mutations, how, I dont profess to know, but clearly it does. See my previous examples. (links)

there is no will in the theory of evolution!!

Sigh. I never said there was 'will', I said there was 'need' (of species) to adapt, ofcourse the species dosent
know they need to adapt, yet it does adapt or die.

okay, we'll have to agree to disagree for now on some points...maybe im just too tired but i didn't really get the point you were trying t make with the snake example...


You say evolution is adaption to survive...exactly my point evolution=adaption=survival...of course an animal will try to survive even if not yet adapted but it tis the process of that species evolution that gives the end result which is adaption and more chance of survival!!

I know you never said there was will, i didn't say you did, i just took that implication and expanded on it!

you must understand, i am not ignoring anything, i am not on either side, but like any neutral my point of view is open to sway...

Also just a question, you say animals adapt or else die, does that that not mean that those first species would all die out, because it took so many years to adapt? I'm probably wrong but its interesting!

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by Zenithar

 

edit ....I don't understand what is happening so I tried to repost cause I thought my links were not allowed ...
I know that right after this thread started the topic was on coast to coast
discussing theory's on how old man is... I can relate to this theory as that is what I was trying to get across in my post.

yes, i really like coast to coast, great information and obviously lots of constructive speculation,,but what they discuss you wont hear about in any sicen journals, there is alot of strange anomalies suggesting mans existence in an intellectual community many many millions of years ago...


[edit on 2-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Zenithar

 

no no i am not mistaking the two at all, What i m saying is even to get from a non cellular being to a cellular one surely still requires random mutations,(which is sticking within the realms of evolutionary theory) all im saying is i find it hard to see that happening, and i am not anti evolution at all in case your wondering , I just question a lot of things about it, because as you know in science theirs nothing that can be definitively proven, only dis proven!!

good point! but i am not saying i don't understand it(of course of don't fully yet) but i was simply saying i was questioning it, which is healthy and the bases of thinking outside the box!!

Sorry, I missed this.

Yes random mutation and natural selection. Mutation is random, selection is not. Natural selection favors the useful mutations and the harmful mutations fall by the wayside.

That you find it hard to understand is only a problem if you stop trying to understand it. If you only listen to people who don't want you to understand it, then you will never get there.

Quantum physics is hard to understand too, but the transistor is demonstrable proof of the usefulness of understanding it.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall


Im sorry to ruin your party freind....

news.discovery.com...

www.owlnet.rice.edu...

www.canetoadsinoz.com...

www.abc.net.au...

Every single one of those examples is NOT evidence of the challenge that was made to you. What you have done ie merely equivocated variation in kinds which is already hard coded in the DNA and NOT the product of Darwinian macro evolution. We know we can get a sun tan in the summer but that is NOT evolution so lets get on the same page, we BOTH know what kind of change we are talking about.

Whats your point here? What need has corn to physically change appearance via mutation? None, so ofcourse its still corn. Your observations/arguments are irrelevent, flawed and ignorant.

Yeah and it will always BE corn, and I am so sure of that because we have tried to assist in such fantasy as to use quickly mutating bacteria only to find the same thing we would find with corn and that is variation that is already coded in the DNA in the first place



[edit on 2-3-2010 by CT Slayer]

reply to post by CT Slayer


Speciation has been observed in the laboratory. New animals incapable of mating with animals they are descended from (ie, they have formed a new species) have been created. Also, new insects have been found in the London Underground that don't exist anywhere else. That means that this species has evolved since the London Underground's creation.

Lizards changing colour, as in the Discovery link, is not the same as us getting a sun tan. The adaption isn't in an individual (as in your failed analogy), but in the population itself. The mutation of white scales are advantageous, and so the lizards without white scales are eaten, ensuring that the only lizards there have white scales, which is then the "norm".

The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time. The principle of lizard populations becoming white is the same as whales evolving from their horse-like ancestors.

reply to post by DeathShield


Disagree because ...
Archeology and it’s artifacts that have been dated to millions of years ago and, have disappeared. We all know about the Crusaders and the Kings stealing artifacts from the Temple. Well where did all these artifacts go???? The shroud of Jesus the cross these are just some of the many things that are missing..... These artifacts are being hidden by someone and that is well known.. Same with Jaw bone that was dated millions of years ago... There are many missing pieces to this puzzle

reply to post by Zenithar


Well I can relate to many things that Michael Cremo is talking about, this is what I was thinking many, many of years ago. He talks of what humans are... that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and
consciousness or spirit.
In other words our body is just the shell consisting of matter but the mind our brain contains our consciousness or spirit. This is what never ends our spirit every living things mamals, trees, rocks, all have this spirit...
So is there a divine spirit?? yes I believe there is...

reply to post by NorthStargal52
Cremo is dishonest and mendacious. He uses old news snippets and rhetoric to enchant people with his own world view....Hindu creationist BS.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

who says it was perfectly adapted?

The person my post was responding to, that's who.

Incidently, not all bottom feeding fish have supportive fins. Bottom feeding fish come from differing enviroments remember.
The gist of evolution is that its driven by adaption to survive in whatever means isnesesary or it fails and dies out as a species.

First of all, I was giving an analogy that happens to fit quite well with my opposing interlocutors assertion where he assumes the quasi fin feet on this fish are devolving from what ever they have also never proven beyond speculation, it was before "adaptation starte

The website the link he sent me to go read about it said it's extinct, that's who said it.

perhaps it simply did adapt further and became the ancestor of living lungfish today.

Perhaps this, perhaps that, I get it you think saying comments that are predicated on pure speculation using giveaways like "perhaps" is good science to you, but wishing something perhaps changed into something else is not proof and that is why "perhapsing" it into the lungfish which is a balast mechanism, is again, nothing but pure speculation.

What you seem to miss, is that every species ever discovered is not nessesarily extinct, though many are, especially since we rocked on the scene.

No, don't be so presumptuous, I didn't miss anything remember, MY response was taken again from the website I was given where IT said the fish was extinct, NOT me. But I will say, their is an 99.999999989.999% chance that it is IN fact, extinct. As much as I would love to rub another colacanth living fossil in your arguments face, I doubt Ill see one of these extinct fish nevertheless.

Neanderthal man is considered extinct, yet there are veiws that they simply bred with cro magnan (i think) and became the ancestor of modern homo sapiens. Point is, species do change, this is proven, what many creationist fail to accept is that individuals dont change drastically, and that species dont become totally different animals either aka fish to bird.

Would you happen to know what percentage of our DNA we share with neanderthal man? Would you say we are 78% similar to theirs? How about 89%? or 95%? are we more like them than say the chimp? Think about where i am going with this because you obviously think I just got off the turnip truck and feel you must explain the "basics" of the ToE because you assume you already know more about it than I do. So share your wealth of knowledge with me, School me, with your infallible science that seems to suggest that I have an alternative theory and it is the one where you have already told me that part where "creationist's" like "me", are incapable of understanding. I always get a charge out of showing this kind of example of debates I have been in with my colleagues so they can share them with their students and co-workers as an illustration of the very point I was making in my opening post. But you go ahead,, I am all ears and still have an open mind to the possibility, remote as it will most likely be, that you will enlighten me, the "dufas" of science that us "creations" have such a reputation for being. I am sure eugene at NAS will be delighted to a giggle that might even match her well disguised gender beneath her successfully adapted lesbian evolution so encouraging to her "survival"

Oh this is such a tired argument, for everyone I think.
At the end of the day it seems, should science explore new means to, and discover and prove the workings of life/evolution/adaption and so on, then we will be enlightened, but still no closer to answering weather or not there is an intelligent designer.

The more intricate and marvelous discoveries science makes, the more questions are created, there will never be an ultimate answer.
Infact the more incredible that which science discovers, the more likely we may be to come to the conclusion that pure random fluke can simply no longer be accepted, so creationist should not run from science, nor sciencebe too confident, for todays science is tomorrows archaic idea.


The first man to claim the earth was round, was likely thought a fool aswell, perhaps we will discover we are all far from the full story.
As it is, I make no ultimate conclusions but I do beleive that adaptive evolution is ongoing and self evident inliving creatures today. How this comes about I dont care to speculate, Im not that arrogant.

The Neanderthal Deception

Despite the Neanderthals' being accepted as a human race, Neanderthal Man is still portrayed as a primitive species. The recreations portrayed by The Discovery Channel show Neanderthal Man as a human who screamed instead of using proper speech, a wild thing who howled like a wolfman.

The fact is, however, that discoveries regarding Neanderthal anatomy and culture show that there was nothing primitive about Neanderthal Man at all, and prove that they were a human race who lived, thought and spoke, and enjoyed a culture and civilization just like modern man.

The dino-bird theory, based on two fossils, flies in the face of the scientific facts. A wider consideration of the scientific findings that totally undermine the dino-bird theory can be easily understood by simply getting a better understanding of BIOLOGY and NOT the religion of evolution.

We are told how similar organs in organisms from different species are controlled by similar genes, and it is then suggested that small changes in the DNA which controls such similarities between organisms can give rise to new species.

That is where the BS ends and of the so called galaxy of evidence Darwinian science, dogmatically claims as a cookie cutter response to add authority to same, I have yet to see one IOTA it in all my years being told of it. The first issue I would think they might have with that idea, even if it were true, it's still a total violation of all experiments and observations in the field of genetics of which evolutionists know very little inspite of what you heard in public school. when occasional mutations are some how successful in making it to fixation, we now know that the entire instruction code of the dna has to be altered along with it as expressions can be made so they will all work else they never get out of the gate to development as they are all interdependent with each other.


You can NOT say anymore that mutation cuts it as a mechanism it is mathmatically IMPOSSOBLE it NOT ONLY doesn't have enough time to work, it doesn't have the capacity to allow more than a few even slight alterations much less those that will go on to benefit those in prior generations of the species. Can you imagine., what it would suggest is that we are the result of a MASSIVE stroke of luck.


So lucky would NOT just our human form be but every plant and animal on earth would be the sum total of nothing but mutations that for some reason just ALL happened to come about at just the right time, in just the right climate with both predator and prey, female and male happening all at the same time JUST to be able to EAT! much less survive and find another mate where LO ajnd behold IT too, has formed, complimentary genitalia just lucky enough to be perfectly suitable to host the males seed.

So forgive me if I sound kurt, you were gracious and I do believe after reading the rest of your post, that I was the one who jumped to conclusions about YOU and I apologize for that. You are more skilled in humility than I expected.

Having said that, (mutations) have never been seen to "develop" living things or to increase their genetic information because the information is NOT there to get it in the first place. Natural selection doesn't even know what or where to look and the only thing I know that can bring something even close to this about is MAN himself but not even CLOSE to what ever facilitated the unfathomably hard to grasp and excruciatingly painful variables and conditions to even consider wraping our little minds around, the WALL darwinists have hit like they french kissed a train, saying in a stupor, a string of comments regarding some flying spaghetti monster.

They JUST don't get it, that everything working in perfect synchronicity in the most supernatural, naturalism man has ever contemplated, must be the bare MINIMUM for darwinian evolution to lose the argument or lose the argument REAL BAD.

It has never been observed beyond that which we can now predict would happen given the various environmental conditions which would initiate said changes making adaptation the result and not what drives it.

You don't get a sun tan first and then go lay in the sun and a chamelion doesn't look like the bark of a tree where he suddenly has an urge to find one fast so it can blend in with it.

For nearly a century, scientists studying the inheritance mechanisms by which physical features are encoded and passed on from generation to generation have obtained findings revealing that DNA is a most complex design directed by exceptional control mechanisms. Even a general overview of the structure of DNA will be sufficient to demonstrate that the claims of the Darwinists go no further than fantasy, and that these need to be distinguished from the science of genetics.

Our DNA contains hundreds of millions of years of retro-viral additions to our genome. I'd say that, in and of itself, is a definitive argument that modern humans evolved on Earth.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by CT Slayer

 

Speciation has been observed in the laboratory. New animals incapable of mating with animals they are descended from (ie, they have formed a new species) have been created. Also, new insects have been found in the London Underground that don't exist anywhere else. That means that this species has evolved since the London Underground's creation.

Lizards changing colour, as in the Discovery link, is not the same as us getting a sun tan. The adaption isn't in an individual (as in your failed analogy), but in the population itself. The mutation of white scales are advantageous, and so the lizards without white scales are eaten, ensuring that the only lizards there have white scales, which is then the "norm".

The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time. The principle of lizard populations becoming white is the same as whales evolving from their horse-like ancestors.

No time is an answer like saying God did it is an answer. a poodle can not mate with a great dane and guess what species they both belong to Hoss

reply to post by dzonatas

Quantum physics is not needed to understand the transistor. Quantum physics is only needed to promote quantum mechanics.

OK, I think the distinction is unimportant to the discussion, but Quantum Mechanics it is.

Quantum Mechanics is hard to understand, but the transistor demonstrates how useful understanding of it is.

I encourage you to keep studying evolution and the Theory of Evolution from people who understand it and want you to understand it. You have no hope of understanding either by studying the people who have no interest in understanding it themselves and especially don't want you to understand it.

This is an interpretation of how we misunderstood each other. One says science hasn't proven dinosaurs as natural. The other claims then the first said dinosaurs are unnatural, yet still no proof dinosaurs are natural. One says dinosaurs are extinct by stated theory. The next says dinosaurs are proven unnatural despite the fact the theory implies no one can prove if the dinosaurs are natural because they are extinct.

I still don't understand you. Who is 'one'? Who is 'the other'. Who is 'the next'.

Who exactly is saying dinosaurs are unnatural? This entire part of the discussion is nonsense as far as I can tell.

Biology studies the natural world. Things found in nature are natural. Dinosaurs were once part of the natural world, and now their remains are part of the natural world.

Biology has nothing to say about the super-natural world.

[edit on 2/3/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by CT Slayer

You have a very warped concept of design friend, it isn't the shape of the rock that we see as the designer of the rock no more than it is the brush that is the artist of the painting. But when I look at MT rushmore, I know it was designed and when I see science stealing the intellectual property of things in nature to design airplanes calling THAT intelligently made and giving credit to science, I call that the arrogance of fools

Yet again you completely ignore my argument in the post and try to pick apart the example I used. My rock is a fair example and not many other creationist would disagree with it, even if they don't agree with my results.

Most of your points are like this completely random rants or just good ol' disinformation.

In one thread you came up with beating me with a baseball bat so I could not reproduce with a hooker ... psycho creationist is psycho

All kinds of retard what? You want to appear scientific in the same voice you speak like a 7th grader?

Yes, a 7th grader who understands that man and dinosaurs did not or even could not coexist . Better then some people ITT.

The fact is, your reversing what evidence is used for, namely to PROVE claims is best when given for that reason but suggesting that evidence that can't "disprove" a claim doesn't mean it supports a claim the same way it doesn't prove an allegation for a crime when it doesn't disprove a crime was committed just the same. Pretty slick use of semantics but it shows you can't be trusted to be sincere or honest about this when such deceptions are attempted to put one over on us.

What ?
Science does prove the crime of Evolution happened.
Yet you still claim it has not, you are the one that has to disprove the the evidence that is already known as fact.

I am really starting to worry for your sanity
Two times you have posted links that completely go against what your points you are trying to make..
(ITT www.abovetopsecret.com... )
I don't even really know what to say to this... other then .

I would just like to say that serious metaphysicians do not consider creationism or evolution to be the true model for totality. They consider Emanation to be the true model. Since some might view this as a topic derailment, I will keep it brief. Creationism posits a sentient being that chooses to create the universe. Evolution posits complex life evolving from simpler life. Emanation differs from these in that it posits that that which is perfect emanates various imperfections of itself. The Absolute is self-objectifying, and thus divides into multiplicity. From singular to multiple. From self-composed to collectively dependent. (See Plotinus, www.attan.com)

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by Zenithar

 

Well I can relate to many things that Michael Cremo is talking about, this is what I was thinking many, many of years ago. He talks of what humans are... that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and
consciousness or spirit.
In other words our body is just the shell consisting of matter but the mind our brain contains our consciousness or spirit. This is what never ends our spirit every living things mamals, trees, rocks, all have this spirit...
So is there a divine spirit?? yes I believe there is...

'

You are very astute and wise to understand such RAAADICAL an idea.

Well. radical to infallible darwinian religion and dogmatic fundamentalist faith.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
I would just like to say that serious metaphysicians do not consider creationism or evolution to be the true model for totality. They consider Emanation to be the true model. Since some might view this as a topic derailment, I will keep it brief. Creationism posits a sentient being that chooses to create the universe. Evolution posits complex life evolving from simpler life. Emanation differs from these in that it posits that that which is perfect emanates various imperfections of itself. The Absolute is self-objectifying, and thus divides into multiplicity. From singular to multiple. From self-composed to collectively dependent. (See Plotinus, www.attan.com)

When did they appoint you to be the social conscience for all of them speaking on behalf of the "serious" ones. Ill bet you those serious ones know who they are too don't they, while the others will just capitulate to your innuendo, saying " mmm yeah, we ain't that serious, the guy has us pegged"

reply to post by CT Slayer


Stop quoting creationist articles from 7-10 years ago
science changes !

I dont got the time ATM but I will show you many parts that are extremely exaggerated and others that are just not valid anymore because .. Science is better

www.evolutionisdead.com...

Way to show you really not thinking for yourself.


And next time please link your "source" instead of trying to pass them off as your own.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by davesidious

My Theory...
I call this a natural process theory...Because before our milky way, existed a universe with other galaxies.... So who formed the universe?
At this time there were galaxies???? I believe a higher spirit from somewhere out in the cosmos, consciously provided this through a vision of wanting to fill the darkness with something beautiful to enjoy... maybe because it was something that was so much wished for by this spirit that lived in the darkness with no real joy and through many trail san error found a way to make this happen where is this universe right now... I believe if we look deeper into the black holes and other areas we may find the answer. (NSG52) my initials
Regarding mutations...at one time our earth did not have the right atmosphere for anything to grow or live...there was no daylight it was dark. Certain atmospheric changes took place in the cosmos.. over time it finally developed into a earth with a atmosphere and water was unfrozen. when all these changes that took place finally created a earth with a very warm temperature organisms sprouted. These proteins and organisms were forming fauna. This spirit provided the seed…biological provisions to produce many things. I believe some of these things came from where this spirit was from. This spirit took whatever resources it had and like any other scientist experimented until things were right. This process was done in stages that in each stage amounted in our time 3million years = equal to its owners time 1 day. This is my own theory… there is no proof to this but in many ways this theory has similar comparisons from many other researchers.