The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

Just because a process is cyclic does not mean it is purposeless. Some of the most efficient and admirable algorithms are recursive. After a period of crisis, religious thought generally gains a lot of mind share. Right before the crisis, scientific innovation and commerce are most highly valued. Religion without science leads to dogmas and stagnation, but science without religion leads to behaviorism, social determinism, and the erosion of the natural world and aesthetic beauty. Perhaps this cycle is indefinite, but perhaps we may break it. Every crisis presents a chance for humanity to say "there is a third way". Every new beginning presents a chance for us to do a new society right, in a sustainable manner. Perhaps the coming purge will be followed by a period where science and spirituality can not spurn one another; it certainly seems more likely than the previous crises. Though I wouldn't put my money on it this time, and if you want to know how the major players are betting you should look at the ratio of investment between weapons development and alternative energy research.

reply to post by Zenithar


The constitution of fossilized bones does beg a question:

* Is hardpan a leftover bone

Or,

* Is hardpan a leftover pressurized bone

One being obvious to possibly to date the earth further into history then what is being seriously considered. We mean the dates of life on this planet in terms of evolution. We would have to rule out the formation of bone itself through a nature process in the earth itself where no surface species where known to previously exist. I hope this is thought about for awhile, yet I do have something to break the mold:

Consider if the archaeologist were actually just very good sculptresses. They would be able to literally take there time to sculpt out a bone from the ground, like from hardpan. Some of these 'artist' could just make dated sculpture and wait for somebody to discover them among ruins.

Call them monoliths of evolution if one can prove the difference of when they were made and dispel any sculptured effects (man made or by nature).

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by DisappearCompletely

 

Some species calls another species the same thing as their species. Offense is taken by a species becuase they do not want to be the same thing. Freedom of choice... 'to be or not to be'

Creationism vs. evolution is only absurd if there is no transistion; that is abnormal.

Simply, some want a 'top-down' approach and some want a 'bottom-up' approach.

Half-life: 'some from me and some for you'

[edit on 1-3-2010 by dzonatas]

I don't think I have ever seen so much jargon and meaningless rhetoric in a serious argument before.

I'm sorry but creationism vs. evolution is and always will be a ridiculous argument unless both sides are able to produce empirical evidence. And if you're referring to creationism being the 'top-down' approach as you so eloquently put it, then it is an extremely inaccurate description since creationism's answers and arguments are as factually verified as those found in The Odyssey by Homer.

Oh yeah, and freedom of choice has nothing to do with being offended about something; it's only our own insecurities that enable offenses.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
I don't think I have ever seen so much jargon and meaningless rhetoric in a serious argument before.

Hey, I think you have the freedom to say that and get away with it and earn yourself a bash point. Although, you never did a single thing to even try to prove why you made such accusation. False accusations hurt people, and now we know the reason behind a new french law proposal.

I'm sorry but

Public admittance of your own guilt... justice is swift.

creationism vs. evolution is and always will be

That is empirical evidence based on your infinite tense.

a ridiculous argument unless both sides are able to produce empirical evidence.

Direction of time matters not as long as there is a sense of time and ordinary time makes justice even more swift.

And if you're referring to creationism being the 'top-down' approach as you so eloquently put it, then it is an extremely inaccurate description since creationism's answers and arguments are as factually verified as those found in The Odyssey by Homer.

You made the choice that creationism is a 'top-down' approach yet someone else may make the choice evolution is a 'top-down' approach. There reason is obvious if creationist and evolution can't agree which way is down if they can't agree with each other.

Oh yeah, and freedom of choice has nothing to do with being offended about something; it's only our own insecurities that enable offenses.

Natural selection and survival of the fittest, and you aren't even insecure they are the same thing or same difference. Someone has their plate full.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by nophun
This is natural (negative) selection! if a species can no longer compete .. it dies.

One by one and we consider it a monotheistic computer.

Sadly, there can be only one.

Science of execution:

1) killing

2) thinking 'outside the box' in order not to be killed

[edit on 1-3-2010 by dzonatas]

Well I do not think a extinction is horrible like .. just to be killed
When dinosaurs roamed, mammals were mostly at a clear disadvantage to there huge counter parts When extinction happens think of it as hitting the reset button. This time around mammals did not need to compete vs the former champs the dinosaur.

Lucky for us.
(sorry I am not good at telling stories )

This is not just being killed off, it is a cycle that will always happen.
This may not be a nice world but it is definitely amazing in its own ways

Originally posted by nophun
This time around mammals did not need to compete vs the former champs the dinosaur.

We can blame Monosanto for seeds of destruction.

Lucky for us.

(sorry I am not good at telling stories

)

Maybe Monsanto's lawyers could be the first of their kind to be considered peaceful.

This is not just being killed off, it is a cycle that will always happen.
This may not be a nice world but it is definitely amazing in its own ways

Pleased, to be here.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by rnaa
Here's a video that explains it quite well.

Doesn't explain any evolution of:

* clock
* sex
* gender

It just assumed they existed.

There is a lot of abiogensis assumptions made in this thread that don't seem acknowledged.

When they do, maybe they'll understand pregensis. (Oh, and progenitor conspiracies... oh my!!)

I missed this post, I think!
Sex and gender have a very important part in evolution
I think the "promotion of genetic variation" is pretty widely known

Basically when something is asexual it is just producing genetic clones of its self, this is not very good for genetic variation

en.wikipedia.org...

*Anything*gensis is not the study of already living things changing overtime.
As evolution is the change of living things over time.

If we do not start to understand this I will start preaching panspermia for no reason but I want to belief we are from Mars



[edit on 1-3-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by dzonatas

The problem with your argument is the random superposition of how you jump back and forth between the nature of evolution and the theory of evolution. This is a problem others have too. They have to choose one or the other. When they draw upon both, then they have to make sure there is a clear distinct if something applies as in the nature of how something evolved of the theory of how something evolved.

People that are unable to make that distinction are creationist or IDers.

That is not a problem with MY argument.

It may be a problem with people who don't understand that the 'Modern Evolutionary Synthesis', commonly called 'The Theory of Evolution', and which incorporates the ideas of Darwin but is not limited to those ideas, discusses the mechanisms of "Evolution of life on Earth", a process that has been and continues to be observed, and has nothing to say about Abiogenesis or Cosmology or Religion or anything else.

The theory is obviously incomplete because whatever was natural about Dinosaurs can't be described by a theory that also claims they are distinct and unable to prove what is natural or unnatural about them.

Come again?

You are the only one that is saying that Dinosaurs are unnatural. Why would the ToE need to explain what is unnatural about the Dinosaurs when it understands them as natural? It doesn't make sense.

That doesn't answer where the resources, the chemical elements, appeared to allow the existence of another enzyme. If 10 chemical elements are used to make 10 genes, ratio of 1 to 1, then there is no other chemical element to produce another enzyme.

That enzyme would have to become distinct in order for another enzyme to appear and use the resources of the previous enzyme.

The chemical elements that make up the enzyme do not come from the genes. The genes code for the enzyme, the chemicals come from the raw materials available in the rest of the cell. That's what 'food' supplies.

I hope you understand the contradiction in your superposition. Even if the enzyme makes a difference, with only 10 chemical elements, then the only difference it could make to produce another enzyme is to share. It divides into two enzymes. Each new enzyme has 5 chemical elements with a ratio of 1:1 of genes, and the result is 2 enzymes in a finite universe of 10 genes. Make sure this is clear about a finite amount of resources.

Unfortunately you are the one that doesn't understand what is going on. It is the GENE that you have limited to 10 bytes. Those 10 bytes define, but do not become the enzyme. Otherwise the gene would be destroyed each time the enzyme was used. The gene is the 'rules' that define how the enzyme is built, it is not the enzyme itself.

No more information can be stored if there are new resources. No more genes can be produced to store information if there are no more chemical elements to produce those genes.

Again, the gene is coding for a more complicated enzyme, that is all. The enzyme does not consume the chemicals make up the gene itself. The enzyme contains chemicals from surrounding cell.

Everything is just chemical reactions, nothing is created or destroyed. Existing stuff is reused or co-opted, or stops being used.

However, you didn't apply the rules of a finite universe because of your superposition mix.

The universe has nothing to do with it. But if you insist on discussing it in that way, Earth is not a perfectly closed system, it gains and loses mass and energy to the universe all the time. The atmosphere is not a closed system. A plant is not a closed system. An animal is not a closed system. Cells of plants and animals are not closed systems.

Systems that are not closed are allowed to gain both mass and energy but nothing can create either. This means that there is no problem with entropic death as long as energy can be supplied. This means that there is no problem with increased organization (i.e. information being gained), either as I have described it or as you would have it (by adding bytes).

Put simply, "You eat, therefore you learn". (ooh, I like that ;-) )

Originally posted by nophun
Basically when something is asexual it is just producing genetic clones of its self, this is not very good for genetic variation

Some promotion is obviously too random to be considered random, and these are where preferences out weigh a random generation. Of course, we can't blame random generations that have lost truth beyond the point to understand the preferences.

It happens, and it becomes a new journey. It's not luck if the thinest thread of ordinary sense is maintained through out the genetic variations. At this point, this is where random becomes pure chaos maintained by loyalties of prior variations.

We can doubt the existence of meta-evolution as it sounds like meta-science, which would be like reinventing the wheel, which is a waste of resources for genetic variations.

Venus shouldn't bring us any doubt that panspermia exists just because we want to believe we are from Mars, yet lets narrow this down beyond doubt. I know patented information about proton exchange membranes with zero emissions, so I have an excuse to talk stories. Just like sex and gender, there is sometimes a different way to see this as up twin mount difference and down twin mount same... well that would be Mars.

No, like you said it isn't about the actual living thing, it is about the direction of attraction.

We bank it with biotech.

In this case it is your argument that is flawed, if you understood the process of RANDOM mutations you would see that the concept of NEED does not come into it. in fact evolving something because of a need almost indicates direction, I'm not saying he's right or wrong, just that bringing the concept of need into evolution is a mistake alot of people make, even on the discovery channel, if species evolved certain features because they are NEEDED, that would not be random at all!!!!

Why do you insist it must be random? Adaption drives evolution, adaption = need.
Just because you feel 'need' implies a creator, you run from the idea?
The need to adapt in order to survive is natural and self explanitory and self evident.
weather patterns change, habitat changes, hence a need to be able to cope with such changes is perfectly met by adaption, else the species dies out.
Its not complicated. Those who insist mutation 'must' be random, are simply offended by the idea of cause and effect, which is equally self evident, natural, and does not imply a creator if you beleive in the accepted scientific veiw of the laws of physics among others involved in cause and effect.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by wayaboveitall



Okay, I know random mutations are not actually random, that's just a bad name. The reason I say random mutations is because that is the widely accepted language for the unpredictable changes within the dna of species over time leading to change and evolution...

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..

adaption does not equal need, there is no concept of need in evolution. that's simply us giving names to observed processes in nature, there is only an inadvertent need when looked at from the outside in, animals don't "know" they need to adapt, they just try to survive..

please don't put words in my mouth, i never once mentioned that need implies creator and have previously stated that i am not a so called creationist, just a neutral person interested in all sides of all arguments and mysteries, and, it just so happens that at this moment I am questioning and learning about evolution, that's the only way one can truly learn and formulate informed opinions...by seeing both sides!!!

I am not offended by cause and affect and i do agree that mutations are not actually random...but they are unpredictable, therefore, the outcomes are unpredictable, therefore, it is unpredictable mutations that drive adaption, and even then, adaption is never at an end, it is a continuing process...

In case i did not elaborate my point in the right way,

I am on neither side of the theory, just neutral,

reply to post by wayaboveitall


Mutations, without knowing the animal in which they occur, create new variations of a species, of which the most suited ("the fittest", in Darwin's parlance) survive and pass on those mutations to the next generation. Evolution deals the cards, natural selection makes the hand.

Individual animals don't adapt, species do. There is no will in evolution. It is impossible.

Originally posted by rnaa
It may be a problem with people who don't understand that the 'Modern Evolutionary Synthesis'

The problem with mere synthesis in a chemical paradigm is the inability to not know natural earth. We do have the ability to understand ordinary metals and organic matter, yet science itself is incapable, when limited to finite physics, to understand these differences of natural earth and organic matter. When chemist try to synthesize earth they are unable to prove it as an organic solution.

You are the only one that is saying that Dinosaurs are unnatural.

That is not what was typed by me.

Why would the ToE need to explain what is unnatural about the Dinosaurs when it understands them as natural? It doesn't make sense.

Theorist of Evolution needs to understand the sense of difference between when the theory itself says they are natural yet hasn't been proven otherwise. To understand them as natural doesn't prove they are natural. These are scientific tests for the theorist to either synthesize theory itself as religion or to test the theory itself and understand science.

The chemical elements that make up the enzyme do not come from the genes.

The entire point of why the ratio exists in the stated universe became ignored. Please, deny ignorance, apply the ratio, and reread what I wrote.

Systems that are not closed are allowed to gain both mass and energy but nothing can create either.

In apropos to this 10 byte universe case: closed systems are theory of evolution Open systems are creationism. Only have 10 bytes to live.

Put simply, "You eat, therefore you learn". (ooh, I like that ;-) )

Nothing to learn after 10 bytes, unless.... you tell me.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by wayaboveitall

 

Mutations, without knowing the animal in which they occur, create new variations of a species, of which the most suited ("the fittest", in Darwin's parlance) survive and pass on those mutations to the next generation. Evolution deals the cards, natural selection makes the hand.

Individual animals don't adapt, species do. There is no will in evolution. It is impossible.

exactly my point, there is no will in the theory of evolution!!

Originally posted by dzonatas


Theorist of Evolution needs to understand the sense of difference between when the theory itself says they are natural yet hasn't been proven otherwise. To understand them as natural doesn't prove they are natural. These are scientific tests for the theorist to either synthesize theory itself as religion or to test the theory itself and understand science.

So natural selection needs to be proven ? This is what you are getting at ?
You are saying believers in Evolution need to show natural selection ?

You seem to leave out the "selection" part for some reason.


Am I understanding correctly ?

Originally posted by dzonatas

Hey, I think you have the freedom to say that and get away with it and earn yourself a bash point. Although, you never did a single thing to even try to prove why you made such accusation. False accusations hurt people, and now we know the reason behind a new french law proposal.

No, I said it because you riddle your writing with nonsensical rhetoric like the following:

That is empirical evidence based on your infinite tense.

Direction of time matters not as long as there is a sense of time and ordinary time makes justice even more swift.

The former two quotes sound like ramblings of someone on '___'.

Public admittance of your own guilt... justice is swift.

What guilt am I admitting here?

You made the choice that creationism is a 'top-down' approach yet someone else may make the choice evolution is a 'top-down' approach. There reason is obvious if creationist and evolution can't agree which way is down if they can't agree with each other.

No. Evolution cannot be considered a 'top-down' approach because it has been through the scientific method and all evidence has been gathered and analyzed by countless scientists to test its validity. The reason I said creationism was the 'top-down' approach is because creationists think they have everything figured out from scripture, hence they have their answers from the 'top' (ie: a divine entity).

Natural selection and survival of the fittest, and you aren't even insecure they are the same thing or same difference. Someone has their plate full.

I'm not insecure about what? What are you even talking about?

[edit on 1-3-2010 by DisappearCompletely]

[edit on 1-3-2010 by DisappearCompletely]

Originally posted by nophun

The act of selection may or may not have a reason. It may or may not have an order.

If the selection is only synthesized by empirical elements then that may have a random chance to ignore the act of nature itself and then the selection is not natural if ignored. By my experience, this ignorance is too obvious for natural life.

Consider the unforeseen possibility of a natural life that suddenly appears in a ordinary metal computer. That life may suffer or it may affect that machine as ghost in a machine. Empirical evidence for a virus exists because of this ignorance, yet that doesn't mean we should deny ignorance all about it.

Believers in evolution don't understand how to define human. They don't know the differences between man and species. Human could be defined as half-man merely by the principle of half-life.

Selection could list life that becomes single gene units or a chapter.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
No, I said it because you riddle your writing with nonsensical rhetoric like the following:

There is no sense to argue with what you don't want to understand or collaborate.

Evolution cannot be considered a 'top-down'

Start with the infinite and continue with evolution and that is a top-down approach, in accordance to what you said:

The reason I said creationism was the 'top-down' approach is because creationists think they have everything figured out from scripture

If one starts with the infinite then there is only one thing someone can do to make it seems more finite... divide. When you can divide and not multiply then that may seem divine to you, and you just became a creationist. Because with a start on the infinite then you have yet to prove how to multiply before one can prove science existed first to even prove itself by mathematics.

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.

Originally posted by dzonatas
The act of selection may or may not have a reason.

Survival ... nothing more nothing less.
If a species stops evolving there is a good chance it will not be able to keep up. Likely resulting in extinction.

Originally posted by dzonatas
Believers in evolution don't understand how to define human. They don't know the differences between man and species.

You just defined humans We are a species that evolved the same way as any other species.

People have a problem with this. I personally think it is amazing.