Survey for those who do not believe in evolution

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

Hmmmm...Saw that on Nova on PBS, it was a show on evolution. I have no knowledge on how to link or how to find that show about the beaks of the birds on that island and how they needed to adapt so all of them could live there.

So since I have no knowledge on how to find this evidence, than my knowledge from reading at minimum fifty thousand research articles over the years is just an opinion. I can live with that.

I'm guessing you are referring to Darwin's finches.

Here's the thing. The birds don't grow the beaks out of necessity. They don't consciously choose to change. The trait already existed in their genetics and became a dominant gene out of necessity. If you just have genetic changes without environmental changes, you'll see genetic drift or variance. Basically lots of small changes that slightly vary in individual creatures within a species. Suppose 1 out of 10 birds is born with a longer beak than the others. They are a minority and make up less than 10% of the species. The long beaks and the short beaks fill their niches fine until a plague hits and wipes out most of their food sources or force them to go into hiding. Now, the 10% of the species that has longer beaks have an advantage since food is scarce and they can break shells, drink nectar or otherwise obtain food that the other birds cannot. Over time, the short beaks are forced to migrate away or die out while the long beaks begin to pass down more genes and dominate the gene pool. Now what you'll notice is that eventually 9 out of 10 birds are now born with long beaks. Now this is just a general example, it may not be the exact one you were referring to but that's essentially how traits emerge and change a species. It's not about one single breed's will for survival that forces the genetic changes, it's about the others dying out or migrating.

So to sum it up, genetic mutations do happen slowly and add up over time. Sudden environmental changes bring about the emergence of dominant traits within the species or group of species and it happens because others die out, not because creatures are forced to change when faces with tough times.

Like I say, I believe in evolution but do not believe in the theory of evolution, it has too many problems.

What problems? People constantly say there are flaws in the science but refuse to list any of them. What you are saying is like saying, "Well I believe that the earth is round, but I don't buy the theory of round earth". I can understand if you say you don't believe in the hypotheses currently being tested, but there's a lot of solid evidence in the scientific theory.

reply to post by Barcs


Ok, let's take a personal example as related to people's genetic needs. I cannot prove what I am about to say, it could have two completely different causes. It is something I have related this darwin bird example to in my own life. It is important to say that recent research shows, on Science Daily.... in the last month or so, that the human brains wiring system is sort of like a birds but the composition of structure is more like a pig so on to the example, make your own conclusion from the evidence.

When we have chicken, I eat the dark meat because my wife likes the white meat. My father and grandfather did the same thing. I can eat the white meat but it doesn't taste good to me. My father said the breasts are woman food.

I have noticed that if I just eat white meat that my breathing is worse, I was trying to please the wife for a while by buying boneless breasts instead of whole chickens. I also noticed that my heart was not beating as smooth. Until I actually got way into this I was not putting two and two together.

My fathers relatives seem to have always been doing this, the men eat the dark meat, the women eat the white meat. The white meat is higher in calcium, women need more calcium for milk production and to keep them in shape for producing children. Men need more strength, the selenium in the dark meat is needed to balance strength and to help with proper breathing in heavy work. Selenium helps run the left side of the body while molybdenum is more right side, these minerals need to be balanced. This does not also seem to be universal in the world of man though, this does not always apply to everyone.

Since I learned this, I have been able to inform my daughter and the asthma in her kids is reduced....It is not really asthma, my daughter and all her kids, except one girl, inherited this gene expression for some reason. Now that they eat dark meat, actually liking it a lot more, and can breath better. Balance of minerals in the body to control asthma is crucial.

So lets look at this more in depth. Did this gene expression come from the desire of the guys in my ancestrial male line to make sure women had the white meat that better met their needs and desires? Or is the fact that they chose a woman who liked white meat so they could have the dark meat have an influence on who they chose to marry. I can't say for sure which is the right answer here, I just know that if I try to eat all white meat I have a couple of problems, same with most of my offspring. Now, the in thing is that everyone should eat white meat on the chicken because it has less fat....but then some people will need medications after a while to control irratic heart beat and breathing. I think that people are not understanding things right, they are jumping at conclusions without thinking about them.

Like I said about the theory of evolution, they are trying to lasso a dragon with a horse lasso. Consciousness has to be considered, it is not all survival of the fittest. All living things have consciousness to a certain point and that steers evolution.

I do believe in evolution but believe that the theory of evolution is so flawed it needs to be recreated allowing for consciousness in the world. I do not believe in creationism but I think it served to answer questions of the time and it does have links to consciousness in it....Anything that man names has a soul...man gives a name to everything....This only shows that there was a realization that everything had consciousness at that time. The forest has collective consciousness, the organisms are constantly communicating through electrical and chemical means. Science is just starting to realize this.

reply to post by rickymouse


Why would consciousness not be considered a synapomorphy?

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

I looked up some of the terms, the bird example I was talking of above, some of the birds had longer beaks to get at nectar while others had short beaks for the original food. They were both the same birds by DNA, but had acquired different gene expression I think. That doesn't really fall into Synamorphy though because there isn't always permanent evolutionary changes with gene expression. There are also fish up in Canada that can adapt to salt/fresh water changes within a generation. This expression of changes in their gill structure is just temporary, they can flip back and forth. Like I say, I believe in evolution but do not believe in the theory of evolution, it has too many problems. It's like they used a horse lasso to try to catch a dragon.

I watch a lot of These kind of shows on PBS. The wife calls me down from the computer if there is anything I am interested in on there. I usually do a little verification on the shows to see if their information matches consensus of others and it usually checks out pretty well.

A distinct difference in beak morphology between two genetically isolated populations is a synapomorphy. If the populations became genetically isolated over time, due to monopolization of a resource that the other populations aren't accessing, they would differentiate into different species. This *is* what has happened in the past. Similarly for the gill structure, of a group of those fish become isolated in a lake or creek or whathaveyou, the gill structure would be permanent--the genes linked to the unnecessary gill structure would no longer be inherited and eventually would be disappear from the gene pool.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Like I said about the theory of evolution, they are trying to lasso a dragon with a horse lasso. Consciousness has to be considered, it is not all survival of the fittest. All living things have consciousness to a certain point and that steers evolution.

I do believe in evolution but believe that the theory of evolution is so flawed it needs to be recreated allowing for consciousness in the world. I do not believe in creationism but I think it served to answer questions of the time and it does have links to consciousness in it....Anything that man names has a soul...man gives a name to everything....This only shows that there was a realization that everything had consciousness at that time. The forest has collective consciousness, the organisms are constantly communicating through electrical and chemical means. Science is just starting to realize this.

Again, you claimed the theory is flawed but neglected to point out any flaws in the science. Not accounting for an unprovable thing such as a collective consciousness is not a flaw. That's how science works, it goes by what has objective evidence and what does not. Evolution is not a completely blind process, however. Sexual selection plays an integral role, which means, yes, consciousness IS considered and applied in evolution. There's also a certain amount of luck involved when natural disasters happen.

Your story about your father & grandfather is pretty cool. Hell, you might be right about having that gene. Oddly enough my family mostly prefers the dark meat (men and women), but it seems more like personal preference. We are a pretty athletic family as well. Perhaps the dark meat is just better for a more active lifestyle in general. A few generations ago, families were very traditional in regards to men working while wife stays home.

reply to post by Barcs


Collective consciousness is not unproven, there are many articles addressing this subject being real....In all but the human species Yeah right, some of the articles I have read about the research of humans collective consciousness by governments around the world are impressive. We are conditioned to not believe it exists in humans yet the alpha personalities abilities are well documented. That is part of collective consciousness, the ones better at it become generals and seargants. They become straw bosses. Just because you believe this does not exist does not mean it doesn't. Collective consciousness is such a normal part of our lives, we fail to realize it exists. We think of wanting to talk to someone and wind up meeting them by accident later that day. It is no accident, it is a communication we all have. If we cannot filter it properly, they say we have skitzo properties or multiple personalities.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


I think you are failing to understand or at least mention the challenge that it is to Abrahamic religions to remove divine intervention in the creation of humans (to me it makes no sense), as that is at the core of how special God and human relation is and should be in their mindset. Hint: Why are these religions defined as Abrahamic ?

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Barcs

 

Collective consciousness is not unproven, there are many articles addressing this subject being real....In all but the human species

Yeah right, some of the articles I have read about the research of humans collective consciousness by governments around the world are impressive. We are conditioned to not believe it exists in humans yet the alpha personalities abilities are well documented. That is part of collective consciousness, the ones better at it become generals and seargants. They become straw bosses. Just because you believe this does not exist does not mean it doesn't. Collective consciousness is such a normal part of our lives, we fail to realize it exists. We think of wanting to talk to someone and wind up meeting them by accident later that day. It is no accident, it is a communication we all have. If we cannot filter it properly, they say we have skitzo properties or multiple personalities.

Can collective consciousness be proven objectively, though? That's all that matters when considering science and whether or not to account for a certain phenomena within a scientific theory. If you can point me toward a scientific study with experiments that have been peer reviewed, and the study concludes that a collective consciousness is factual I'll concede, although I very much doubt it considering we can't even prove regular consciousness, let a lone an entire collective that functions as one and can possibly controls genetic mutations, or the environment.

Funny thing is I do lean to the collective consciousness worldview, but I think more along the lines of all plants, animals, matter and energy are connected. I just never had considered it proven or close to it. I hope I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

I think you are failing to understand or at least mention the challenge that it is to Abrahamic religions to remove divine intervention in the creation of humans (to me it makes no sense), as that is at the core of how special God and human relation is and should be in their mindset. Hint: Why are these religions defined as Abrahamic ?

That's a good point, but one could interpret god's plan for humans to be so complex, that he had to set up a system of genetics and slowly create us over a 4 billion year period. Now THAT's devotion. That sounds to me like humans are way more special and meaningful to god, than simply creating us out of dirt and poof! An act such as that would be well worth of praise. The human / god bond can remain undamaged while still allowing room for scientific facts like the process of evolution. People just get bent out of shape because they follow literal translations.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

I think you are failing to understand or at least mention the challenge that it is to Abrahamic religions to remove divine intervention in the creation of humans (to me it makes no sense), as that is at the core of how special God and human relation is and should be in their mindset. Hint: Why are these religions defined as Abrahamic ?

edit on 18-8-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Ah if there is a Creator then of course a Creator can divinely intervene at any point. Contact with Abraham is in itself a divine intervention.
All things living on earth did just fine without man, for millions of years, we can say that in the sense that all life did not completely vanish unattended. Unattended self adaptability and interdependencies would have been a life preserving mechanism designed into life as important as reproduction. This does not exclude divine intervention. The biblical story has increments of creation, which are divine interventions. The "days" of creation where each "day" has a unique work. Plant life, marine life etc. There is no mention of never ending constant attending. In fact the Creation ends with the Creator designating the final day as a day of rest. How could the Creator rest if the Creation required constant attending? The story itself demands that there be Unattended self adaptability, which is of course all that evolution is.

reply to post by Barcs


You can believe that this does not exist if you want, I will keep trying to figure how to control this communication. I can successfully scramble people's concentration with my mind but cannot control them at all. I haven't been able to even willfully put a thought in their head yet, but I am going to keep trying. So when I figure this out, I will not be telling anyone how it works....It could be dangerous in the wrong hands. The scrambling is bad enough, it distracts people and they make mistakes in what they are saying. I have pretty much accomplished blocking others trying to control me. Lets just say my confidence is now very strong. We have many names for these abilities, none of which say paranormal on them. They are a part of our lives. People do not know what confidence really is, they do not realize that others can influence their behavior without their knowledge. None of this has to do with Pheromones, that is a whole other issue.

reply to post by TinfoilTP

Ah if there is a Creator then of course a Creator can divinely intervene at any point. Contact with Abraham is in itself a divine intervention.

I could see some interest in a human attempting to communicate with an ant, but I see no point in ever attempting to communicate with a bacteria or a virus.

I was not aiming to go there but I put no faith in any of the Abrahamic religions. As a Pantheist I do believe in the divine but as a general force, an order or intellect but not something that would have any special interest in me, us, Earth or Sol system beyond being part of the overall project that I'm happy to let it be unfathomable by me but grateful that can I marvel at it and examine what falls under my comprehension...

In that context the simple point about contact makes no sense to me it would raise more problems than provide any answers or even be of any useful to that divine being... And If we discuss contact we must take in consideration the participants and the message also, to me the selected and the message are even more problematic to the general concept of divine intervention... as for the texts of any Abrahamic religion I see no way I could rationally defend any base for its divine nature...

But to recenter the purpose of my post, the reason why Abrahamic religions refute anything but a direct divine creation is that those religions are centered on man itself, and in historic context it made sense then...

reply to post by Barcs


As a pantheist I do believe in the complexity of the plan, so complex that I have no faith in ever comprehend it all...

The human / god bond can remain undamaged while still allowing room for scientific facts like the process of evolution. People just get bent out of shape because they follow literal translations.

I do not see how one can defend on facts both sides of the problem of divine creation as reported in Abrahamic religions. The divinity of an intentional creator of man, one that intends to be acknowledged and impose us limits as also impart knowledge and in the other side that we are a special divine creation.

I have no issue in people attempting to defend it on faith but then I reserve the right not to agree with it as I see no logic to it. I see it as a self serving delusion that is not created and empowered for the benefit of God (hence the world we live in) but man, and in that it may be useful if as you say people did not took it so seriously.