132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
FBM
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 02:17 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:

In buddhism consciousness is the rock that the fish skeleton is in and the observers viewing all at one. Its your ego or lost self that divides up the event. You and layman are two lost selves ?


Again, you prove only your ignorance of Buddhism. From the very beginning, the oldest suttas in early Buddhist philosophy, ie those of the Pali Canon, consciousness is an ongoing process, not an entity. When the body breaks down, the process ends, just like a candle that burns out. The Buddha severely scolded on of the errant monks who claimed that he taught that consciousness is reincarnated or reborn.

Furthermore, the concept of anatta, as I just explained to you, means that no enduring ego, soul or self can be found. If you don't even know the very fundamentals of a thought system, I'd recommend that you refrain from making references to it. You accomplish nothing but exposing your ignorance for all to see.
martinies
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 02:28 am
@FBM,
Reincarnation is a goes part and parcel with Budhism. And it is this very nonself of which you speak that is the iindistinguishable nonself that is all at one .rock fish skeleton and observer or observer s are in fact all at one across evolution. It is your mind that brings a distinguishing element to the fish skeleton event.
FBM
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 02:31 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:

Reincarnation is a goes part and parcel with Budhism.


Nope. You're thinking of Hinduism. Rebirth is Buddhist. At least read the Wiki before you lay turds like that.
FBM
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 02:53 am
If evolution is a farce, how have the scientists managed to manipulate the process in such intricate and directed ways?

Quote:
Scientists discover an enzyme that can change a person’s blood type
Here’s how everybody can become a 'universal' blood donor.
BEC CREW1 MAY 2015


Scientists have discovered that a particular type of enzyme can cut away antigens in blood types A and B, to make them more like Type O - considered the 'universal' blood type, because it’s the only type that can be donated to anyone without the risk of provoking a life-threatening immune response.

The team, from the University of British Columbia of Canada, worked with a family of enzymes called 98 glycoside hydrolase, extracted from a strain of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Over many generations, they were able to engineer a super high-powered enzyme strain that can very effectively snip away blood antigens where previous generations of the enzyme struggled. "A major limitation has always been the efficiency of the enzymes," one of the team, Stephen Withers, said in a press release. "Impractically large amounts of enzyme were needed."
...


http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-discover-an-enzyme-that-can-change-a-person-s-blood-type

Quote:
Toward Efficient Enzymes for the Generation of Universal Blood through Structure-Guided Directed Evolution
David H. Kwan †‡, Iren Constantinescu §∥, Rafi Chapanian §∥, Melanie A. Higgins ⊥, Miriam P Kötzler †‡, Eric Samain #, Alisdair B. Boraston ⊥, Jayachandran N. Kizhakkedathu ‡§∥, and Stephen G. Withers *†‡
†Centre for High-Throughput Biology, ‡Department of Chemistry, §Centre for Blood Research, ∥Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z3
⊥ Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3P6

Abstract

Blood transfusions are critically important in many medical procedures, but the presence of antigens on red blood cells (RBCs, erythrocytes) means that careful blood-typing must be carried out prior to transfusion to avoid adverse and sometimes fatal reactions following transfusion. Enzymatic removal of the terminal N-acetylgalactosamine or galactose of A- or B-antigens, respectively, yields universal O-type blood, but is inefficient. Starting with the family 98 glycoside hydrolase from Streptococcus pneumoniae SP3-BS71 (Sp3GH98), which cleaves the entire terminal trisaccharide antigenic determinants of both A- and B-antigens from some of the linkages on RBC surface glycans, through several rounds of evolution, we developed variants with vastly improved activity toward some of the linkages that are resistant to cleavage by the wild-type enzyme. The resulting enzyme effects more complete removal of blood group antigens from cell surfaces, demonstrating the potential for engineering enzymes to generate antigen-null blood from donors of various types.


http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ja5116088
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 03:07 am
@FBM,
Think your cutting hairs between rebirth and reincarnation. You are the divider of evolutionary forms from the oneness of creation. The you therefor is a lost you. You and laymans you are lost yous in the sea of samsara.
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2015 03:14 am
@martinies,
Gibberish.
martinies
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 03:36 am
@FBM,
Fbm if Budhism is correct then you are as an observer at one with any fossilised form in niarvana. If you dispute this you are then lost in the sea of samsara or the sea of object observer seperatness. The way your looking at evolution is the lost way from niarvana. The folks at home can see the truth.
layman
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 04:06 am
PZ Myers is an evolutionist who is a homey of Richard Dawkins (they go to movies together). His is also a militant atheist and a vociferous opponent of creationism and ID. According to wiki, he is

Quote:
A self-avowed "godless liberal"[13] and outspoken atheist, he is a vocal critic of all forms of religion, superstition, supernaturalism, spirituality and pseudoscience. He is quoted as having "nothing but contempt" for intelligent design, arguing that it is "fundamentally dishonest"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers

About a year ago he flatly rejected natural selection and received tons of flak from the faithful for doing it. In his blog he severely criticized a South Carolina science standard, which stated:

Quote:
Conceptual Understanding: Biological evolution occurs primarily when natural selection acts on the genetic variation in a population and changes the distribution of traits in that population over multiple generations.

Performance Indicators: Students who can demonstrate this understanding can:

Analyze and interpret data, using the principles of natural selection, to make predictions about the long term biological changes that occur within two populations of the same species that become geographically isolated from one another
.

Myers' reaction was this:

Quote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.... this is wrong because it equates evolution and natural selection, and even makes a factually incorrect assertion, that evolution is primarily a consequence of natural selection.... I’m not in favor of teaching kids false versions of biology.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/02/13/both-wrong/#ixzz3ZA9jAe2R

Just another creationist resorting to "code" ya figure, Farmer?
martinies
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 04:13 am
@layman,
Death and niarvana are the same in terms of evolution. Evolution is action death or niarvana is the the changer and mover of that action.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2015 04:55 am
I wonder if martinies realises that FBM means "former Buddhist monk"? I doubt, since he doesn't seem to know that martinies means "fuckwit".
FBM
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 05:53 am
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:

I wonder if martinies realises that FBM means "former Buddhist monk"? I doubt, since he doesn't seem to know that martinies means "fuckwit".


I'm thinking that these and a whole lot of other facts about the world around him have escaped his attention.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 05:56 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:

Fbm if Budhism is correct then you are as an observer at one with any fossilised form in niarvana. If you dispute this you are then lost in the sea of samsara or the sea of object observer seperatness. The way your looking at evolution is the lost way from niarvana. The folks at home can see the truth.


This is just more incomprehensible gibberish. Seriously. I don't know what your native language is, and I don't mean to insult you for not being a native English speaker, but please at least run your sentences through Google Translate or, hopefully, some better translation software. The only real thing I can glean from your posts is that you know **** all about Buddhism. Your statements are random nonsense.
martinies
 
  -1  
Mon 4 May, 2015 06:37 am
@FBM,
What I am trying to show is religion as in budhism is not at odds with the theory of evolution. And if death is niarvana then its niarvana that is ultimately shaping forms.
FBM
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 06:39 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:

What I am trying to show is religion as in budhism is not at odds with the theory of evolution. And if death is niarvana then its niarvana that is ultimately shaping forms.


1. Death is not nibbana. Nothing whatsoever in Buddhism makes such a claim. Anybody who knows the first thing about Buddhism would never make such a ridiculous statement.
2. The accepted scriptures of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) say that their god created man in his likeness. No evolution. There is a conflict.
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  -1  
Mon 4 May, 2015 06:42 am
@FBM,
What I am trying to show is religion as in budhism is not at odds with the theory of evolution. And if death is niarvana then its niarvana that is ultimately shaping forms. The question is why do people not exept evolution and the reason is that they think that it evolution conflicts with belief. Well im trying to show it does not . Because death as niarvana does the evolving.
FBM
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 07:05 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:

What I am trying to show is religion as in budhism is not at odds with the theory of evolution. And if death is niarvana then its niarvana that is ultimately shaping forms. The question is why do people not exept evolution and the reason is that they think that it evolution conflicts with belief. Well im trying to show it does not . Because death as niarvana does the evolving.


1. I've already told you that Buddhism and evolution do not conflict. It's the Abrahamic religions that conflict with evolution.
2. For the second time, nibbana is not death. Nothing in Buddhism says that it is. Are you still in kindergarten? Did you even read what I wrote?
martinies
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 08:12 am
@FBM,
Ok.
FBM
 
  0  
Mon 4 May, 2015 08:17 am
@martinies,
Thank you.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2015 12:06 pm
@FBM,
People may DENY evolution, as an ideological (fantastical) act, in the sense that they reject what they understand to be a simple hypothesis, but they do not, and cannot, REPUDIATE it as the complex body of theory that serves effectively to organize much evidence from many disciplines of the physical and natural sciences. It is not "the theory of evolution"(as in a simple testable hypothesis); it is "evolutionary theory" consisting of many falsifiable hypotheses and empirical generalizations organized around a working assumption of natural selection.
layman
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2015 01:51 pm
@JLNobody,
In it's most basic form, "evolution" simply means something like "change over time, In that sense it is not a theory, it is, basically, a fact, which virtually nobody, not even bible-thumping creationists, deny.

But again, that is not "the theory of evolution." If I say, for example, that humans exist on the planet earth, that is NOT "the theory of humans." There's nothing theoretical about it; it is merely the product of simple observation.

Yet people often talk about THE theory of evolution, as if there were one, and only one, theoretical explanation for the way life, as we see it, has changed over time. There are in fact many different "theories of evolution," or schools of thought regarding theoretical explanation. This is often overlooked by the casual commentator on "the" theory evolution.

I'm not disagreeing with you JL, I agree. Evolutionary theory, as a class of theorizing, is not "the theory of evolution." It is something much more diverse, and even controversial, than that.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 07:42:17