Darwin's theory of our species and its application is pseudoscience used to exploit the weak and po

boymonkey74
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Not supported by science? how about genetics?

There we go proof that we share a common ancestor.

in reply to the video concerning chromosomes and the proof of a common ancestor, the gentleman presents a hefty rhetoric concerning the fusion of the chromosomes.
But this is stark circular reasoning.

He states that we have 23 chromosomes and that the great apes have 24 chromosomes and that we are missing a chromosome. From the start he makes it obvious that this is all based on evolution.
We must be missing a chromosome if they are like us because we are so similar.
Correlation is not causation.

His entire presentation begs the question. He uses circular reasoning the entire time.
He then goes on the describe that at a very specific point two chromosomes fused seen... ummmm.... basically due to their inverse telomeres.
If you watch the video then you will get it.

But everything he says is confirmation bias.

Firstly, if you have read any of my previous posts then you know that mutations are spontaneous things. They cannot be ascribed a definition of how they happen. He assumes that the specific mutation in a chromosome was actually caused by the fusing of two chromosomes.
Mutations are mutations. Fusing is pure speculation.

We can never understand a random event like a mutation.

He is looking for something to believe.

He makes it sound real good and dresses it up real nice like, but it is all speculation because it resulted from a mutation.

reply to post by helius

As far as i have understood the works of Darwin, he never intended his works to serve as a creation theory. If we take a look at the leftwing political establishment , it’s no big secret that they always have despised religion(Christianity in particular). Thus they have been looking for ways and methods to get rid of it ever since. That’s how they eventually hijacked Darwin’s work . They saw it as a tool , and they immediately went to work to modify (and basically re-write it) , so it would function as a theory that explained how everything in the physical world came into being through evolution. They only claimed that this process took millions of years. In this way nobody could really prove it wrong.

Star and a reply that was sweet.

I am so glad that some people can see through the veil. I do think that you are a bit more positive than I, but I wish I would have replied to you sooner.

You are spot on the money. Everything that we are taught sets the foundation to make us willing slaves.
Voluntary servitude.

And the political tool that has become social darwinism is sickening.

Great post.

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar

 

I am not going to respond to this because you are totally derailing the thread by posting long rambling posts that parse individual paragraphs and sentences.
This is a great way to throw off a thread- so I ask you ONE question.

No offence, but the only thing it appears I'm derailing is your script. Anytime I bring up something that goes off script you malign me or refuse to remotely address it. That's your prerogative but I'm not attempting to derail anything. If you're not interested in an open discussion then that's your burden not mine. Anyway, I'll bit on your one question...

The same question that I just proposed.

Explain the unexplained exponential evolution toward greater brain mass, greatly increasing cellular complexity and exponentially increasing intelligence, thus making us the creatures that we are today.
Explain the missing link.

you also quoted in a reply to another poster-

Homo Erectus did NOT have a comparable brain size to modern humans. Homo Erectus brain size averages 900 cubic centimeters (cc.) The human/Cromagnon brain averages 1,350 cc. Neanderthal brain averaged slightly larger in the 1,400cc range. Modern Humans/Homo Sapiens/Cromagnon encountered and had successful 'relationships' with Neanderthal, such that fertile offspring resulted. This is why EVERYONE on the planet, with small exception of some Subsaharan Africans that never left Africa, have Neanderthal DNA at roughly 3%. Neanderthals had a brain mass of 1,400 cc. While you could argue that an elephant has a bigger brain than a human, that is a false analogy.
If you buy into this theory of evolution then the LIKE neanderthal, so much like us that we still have 3% of their DNA in our systems, give or take, on a good day, then it stands to reason that they were THAT much more intelligent than we are today.
It sure would take a really strong person with pythagoran-like math skills to build the pyramids, or the many megalithic world sites that are ALL built in perfect astronomical alignments.

you seem to be forgetting that cranial capacity has a direct correlation to body size. H. Erectus for example with their average of 1100 cc was a smaller creature than MH or Neanderthal. Neanderthal while having a cranial capacity of anywhere from 1200-1600 cc had a larger mass, particularly in regards to lean muscle than AMH w/ their average of 1350 cc and slighter frame. So yes, increased nutrient intake from cooked food did play a huge part in the increasing size of early hominid brains. This is shown by the types of tools, remnants of controlled fires and tool marks on animal bones(or in the case of some Iberian Neanderthals each other) that coincide with these leaps in brain power. There is also the changing social structure to consider. With the ability to cook meat there was a marked division of labor and beginnings of social hierarchy that also coincides with this leap in brain size. Parity is everything though and as I already stated, the size of a hominid brain is going to have a direct correlation to its body mass. this is known from endocranial casts and measurement of the long bones as well as muscle point attachment scars that tell us how strong an individual was and how large their muscles were. As for whether Neanderthal were more intelligent than we are today, maybe. they were at least as smart as we were, had language and religion, produced art and had culture. There is however no evidence of higher math or any permanent structures period let alone megaliths built by Neanderthal. It would be really amazing if that turned out to be so, but as yet there is nothing to support that hypothesis. I hadn't seen the Discover article previously regarding diminishing cranial capacity. It's an intriguing postulation for sure. However decreasing mass doesn't necessarily mean decreasing intelligence. I can't say one way or the other without doing further research. Thanks for the link.

Because without it. Your theory doesn't fly.
It is based upon an idea that is completely random and its the randomness that is actually responsible for continued survival. Random cannot be understood, especially when the goal is to create the highest number of random possibilities for continued survival.

randomness doesn't need to be understood to see that it works. My child doesn't understand the digestive process but he certainly grasps the cause and effect that ingesting food will eventually lead to excretion of solid waste. That randomness that perplexes you comes from a variety of stimuli from various environmental factors including localized environment such as heat or cold, available food sources, competition, types of predators, environmental catastrophes can drastically reduce populations which has profound effects on the gene pool. You seem to be under the impression that the entire process is irreducibly complex and it isn't so.

Please stop derailing my thread and stick to the topic in readable posts that make this worth my time.

edit on 14/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

by all means, don't let me distract you with reasonable facts that your closed mind will not entertain.

lets just be clear, evolution is not an idea that originated with Darwin. the debate on and theory of evolution was on-going about 500 years before JC and continued throughout time, until... Darwin just wrote a book, popularizing it.

reply to post by peter vlar

There is however no evidence of higher math or any permanent structures period let alone megaliths built by Neanderthal. It would be really amazing if that turned out to be so, but as yet there is nothing to support that hypothesis.

Precisely.

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that the Neanderthals built the megaliths, except the remnants of the megaliths themselves, which are strewn throughout the world and built in seemingly precise astronomical alignments.
So in objectively viewing these megaliths, it is very easy to make the assumption that a very strong people with an accurate working knowledge of maths, both individually and as they relate to the movements of the universe, built theses imposing structures that seem to defy logic.

It is very easy to make the assumption that the neanderthal built them, but, in the end, all it would be is an assumption.
And as with all assumptions or hypotheses, they are the product of observing correlations.
And as we all know, or should know, correlation is not causation.

And with evolution, all you have are correlations.

That is it.

I asked you to describe to me, through the template of Darwinian Evolution, the sudden jump in brain mass that is responsible for the supposedly eventual survival of the fittest species,us, homo sapiens sapiens.


And all you gave me, or could possibly give me, to answer this enigma are more CORRELATIONS!

That is all you got.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Ugh. alright.

No evolutionary biologist worth his salt currently believes that human beings are the "fittest" organism on earth. Whatever that means.

Evolution by natural selection describes differential reproductive success among populations through genetic drift. Not sure what there is to "believe." Most people are just too dense to "comprehend" the way it works.

Whenever someone starts in on the "missing link" in human evolution, i typically begin to tune them out because they are obviously too ignorant of the topic of evolution to take seriously. They should read up on taphonomy and the fossil record which is FULL of "missing links."

BEFORE talking about evolutionary biology, PLEASE read up on the differences in theory between Darwinic gradualism and saltatory punctuated equilibrium.

Then try again.

Bless your little heart.

reply to post by RangerMel


Oh my...

You use big words. I don't know what to do.

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis?

Here, I went ahead and looked it up for you, because you don't seem to know what it is.

And I have always heard it referred to as just Punctuated Equilibrium. But only in the bajillion debates that I have had with people over this concept.
You see, even though I am a scientist, I also have been very well schooled in reason and logic.
And when taking correlations, cuz that is all you got on a good day, to try and formulate a working premise for any hypothesis, I use logic and reason as my guide.
And any time that someone proposes something that doesn't fit into those guidelines that the Greeks spoke of, at great length, almost 3000 years ago-
I pay them no attention.

But the people that think that they are right but embracing ignorance, and are doing so in a deliberate act of self-sabotage; those are my favorite people to debate.
Smug wipes off real good now.
Bless your little heart.


Edit to Add-

For those that don't know what we are talking about-
Punctutated Equilibrium is evolution, just as Darwin proposed from a single cell to us, but seen in long periods of very little change, interspersed with periods of rapid change versus Gradualism, which is what Darwin proposed.

And I am calling the ad hoc hypothesis fallacy because when confronted with the reality that the Pre-Cambrian explosion and the sudden jump in brain mass and complexity invalidates Darwin's theory, because it does, all that could be done was amend the original theory.
The new theory changes the old theory in just the right places so that it makes sense.

That is a freaking classic example of the ad hoc hypothesis in action.
And by someone smart too.

You claim to be a scientist.

But you are confusing the the theory of evolution, which is not debated by scientists as a concept due to the preponderance of the evidence ... with the the mechanism whereby evolution occurs.

Additionally, "social" and "cultural" darwinism are concepts that originated with anthropologists and sociologists and are hotly debated. But right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate, they bear no reflection on evolutionary biology. Your original post seemed to imply such. Not the case.

I happen to have a degree in evolutionary biology. It irritates me when people say that they don't "believe" in evolution because they have only the most rudimentary knowledge of the concepts, mechanisms, and terminology.

Believe whatever you want. But if you can disprove evolutionary theory ... publish, submit for peer review, and collect your Nobel prize.

Good luck.

RangerMel
You claim to be a scientist.

But you are confusing the the theory of evolution, which is not debated by scientists as a concept due to the preponderance of the evidence ... with the the mechanism whereby evolution occurs.

I think that you have it backward. Evolution is the mechanism whereby Darwinian Evolution, gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, is carried out, but the preponderance of the evidence is not on the side of Darwin.
That is why I continually reference the fossil record.
That is the only hard evidence that you have.
And it doesn't support you. Unless you count the lack of evidence produced by the ad hoc hypothesis punctuated equilibrium.

As evidence.

Additionally, "social" and "cultural" darwinism are concepts that originated with anthropologists and sociologists and are hotly debated. But right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate, they bear no reflection on evolutionary biology. Your original post seemed to imply such. Not the case.

The only reason that social or cultural darwinism is even allowed to exist as an idea is because what Darwin proposed in his book On the Origin of Species is promoted by folks like you.

I happen to have a degree in evolutionary biology. It irritates me when people say that they don't "believe" in evolution because they have only the most rudimentary knowledge of the concepts, mechanisms, and terminology.

Believe whatever you want. But if you can disprove evolutionary theory ... publish, submit for peer review, and collect your Nobel prize.

It irritates me when people continue saying that they have a degree in yada, yada, and they are a scientist for yada, yada; but in reality they are a charlatan with no respect for formal logic.

Why would I want a Nobel. Obama has one.

Good luck.

Don't need it when random mutation has my back, apparently.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

the preponderance of the evidence is not on the side of Darwin.

"Darwinian Evolution" hasn't been the model for the theory of evolution for over a century now. Even by the end of the 1800's, people understood that Mendel's work in genetics (or something similar) would have to be incorporated. Over time, evolution has come to incorporate cytology, systematics, botany, morphology, ecology, and paleontology as well. It's hardly what Darwin outlined in his work a century and a half ago.

That is why I continually reference the fossil record. That is the only hard evidence that you have.

Completely backwards. The vast majority of the evidence that supports evolution is genetic evidence. In the complete absence of a fossil record, we would still have enough genetic evidence to support evolution that it would be the dominant explanation for biodiversity by a wide margin.

reply to post by iterationzero

Completely backwards. The vast majority of the evidence that supports evolution is genetic evidence. In the complete absence of a fossil record, we would still have enough genetic evidence to support evolution that it would be the dominant explanation for biodiversity by a wide margin.

All that gene sequencing does is demonstrate possibilities, and it is very rudimentary in its understanding.

You have no idea what phenotypes were expressed simply by looking at a sequenced genome.
All you can see are possibilities.