Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@farmerman,

Here's an interesting article on biodiversity and how forest fires will produce plants different from what was burned down. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/when-forest-burned-what-comes-back-may-not-resemble-what-was-lost

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I was sorta saying omething similar on a thread about GMO's . You kill something en masse and what deploys itself in its place is often something that shitcans the original biodiversity. I never thought that the forest fires were a target area, but it stands to reason. The fire trashed thousands of acres and newly invasive plants, many only recently imported from Asia and Africa. All these new plqnts OUTCOMPETE our own climax vegetation. In the east e hqve a lot of oak and mapl trees dying and these re being replced by Pawlonia and Princess trees and giant sumac, kudzu, wild grape and other crap that is turning our beautiful appalachiqns into jungles where we can start raising pandas.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

We hadn't traveled up to the Sierra Nevada Mountains in a long while, but I remember seeing a lot of dying pine trees caused by the drought. Unfortunately, I found this. http://www.npr.org/2017/08/22/545314063/californias-forests-continue-to-die-after-years-of-drought
When our kids were young, we were partners in a condo at Incline Village by Lake Tahoe, and it was a period when we used to travel up there several times a year. We sold our share many years ago, and haven't traveled there for many decades. They were pleasant times back then, and miss it terribly, but the memories remain.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

By claiming the mathematical improbability gambit as some kind of evidenced you just think that we naturalism favoring scientists are uneducated tools. you come off sounding rather smog in certain

I’m just saying the odds require you to have a lot of faith in something that isn’t very likely to happen did happen. I think Faith is great I just wish you admitted that you were Faith filled believer in naturalism which is similar to a worldview like Catholicism.

Quote:

Get cracking and dig up something bad at least gives us all pause to think about and weigh in on it. . . as an honest to goodness working earth scientist I live for what I don’t know and I admit that I just wonder around trying to make my contributions while limiting my biases.

I am certain. I do have the evidence. I don’t take my beliefs on faith anymore. I did when I was a child before I Was educated but not anymore. I don’t mean to sound smug. I am above average intelligence but not the smartest guy in the room most of the time. I just lucked out and asked the right questions and found the right answers. Or maybe it wasn’t luck. Maybe I started with faith that I would find the answers and I wasn’t afraid to ask God how he did it And expected the right answer. No matter how crazy it sounded I went with it. Taken as a whole it works.

I will hold you at your word that you were unbiased to the best of ability.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Naturalism is not based on faith. It accepts "nature" as the driving force which many accept as evolution.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Nature cannot create complexity like we see in our ecosystem today. Complexity always takes intelligence. It takes a lot of faith to believe all this complexity and bio diversity and interdependence We observe in our ecosystem was created by something without a mind.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Nature cannot create complexity like we see in our ecosystem today. Complexity always takes intelligence.

Theres a lot of certainty in that statement. How do you back it up?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

He backs it with more BS.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Complexity has never been initiated by a random process. Give me an example that I can make observe a random processes creating complexity. It has never happened and cannot happen.

3 Replies

@brianjakub,

the combination of random insertion and emplacement and "folding" of genes supplies the "recipe" for phenotypic diversity. Natural selection provides the retention of the genotype of tht species most adaptive to the condition.

There nothing "Magic about that".
On the other hand you must learn to actually provide some evidence to support your worldview. So far all your discussion points have been to deny that the above DOES NOT occur, and your reasons are mostly composed of " becauseit cant"

That is Hardly rigorous evidence.

I can, (and have) recited interminably , about the evidence that relates new species to any new environment and the evidence that demonstrates how we conclude that such has happened.

I would really like to hear what youve got in hand from which you draw your conclusions.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Complexity has never been initiated by a random process

Once again, you know this how?

The concept of anagenesis was first described by Darwin. It, besides his belief in th erosion of traits through generations, are the two areas where Darwin was totally incorrect. anagenesis preached that all life proceeded "upward" an this, we now know was based on a similar belief that "it cannot be that life will take a path to simpler forms". Everyone in science believed it but no evidence was there to deny or support it until detailed studies of the genetics of simple annelids and arthropods in which the evolution of sexual poly morphism has led to forms of the male that have become mere attachments to the female.
This had occured over several stratigraphic sequences wherein the original environments had become more and more turbid so that free living males were unable to locate females, and several initial forms (bearing larger claspers) became candidates for simplified body form. This is easily seen in progressive stratigrphic records

0 Replies

@farmerman,

embeddeddimensions.com

That link has about a third of what i have written down of my understanding of the best way to interpret physics, religion, psychology, and philosophy. It is a work in process, and what Iv'e confirmed from you about biological evolution needs to be written yet. The last two thirds needs editing but maybe I'll just tack it on even if it is rough.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Complexity has never been initiated by a random process. Give me an example that I can make observe a random processes creating complexity. It has never happened and cannot happen.

Nor does science disagree with you. Everything happens within the parameters of scientific laws. It is creationists who say evolution is random, not science.

So, you see, evolution does not deny an intelligence. However, nor does it support it.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

But everyone else seems to be missing the most critical point with its essential q's: Why are things they are and not some other way?

First off. Asking why questions tend to get bashed and written off as to science isn't in the business of answering why questions. However; if you watch enough Richard Feynman videos he states that he is intact more interested in answering why questions rather than how.

I tend to agree with him on that.

With all that said, I can honestly say your question has the problem of perspective. You see you can justify in your mind that things "could" technically be some other way. However; the reality is you have NO clue that they actually can be different than how they are.

So in this case asking why things the way they are suggests that they could be different. But that is an error already and you haven't even began. You can't assume things "could" be different than how they are. That is NOT scientific, its an assumption sneaking into the problem.

So a better question becomes, can things be different than how they are? We don't know.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

What Richard Feynman actually said was that
"So many people believe in so many crazy and wonderful things that Ive found I like to investigate WHY they do"

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

I wonder where you expect to go with this as a supportive collection of clips??? Do you think they support Intelligence (beyond that which has been used to "decipher" natures processes??)

PS, It locks up fairly quickly. I think that you should re process these so that the individual Wiki's dont act as breaks.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Beyond that which has been used to decipher natures processes??

I don’t understand what you’re saying there.

Quote:

I think this locks up fairly quickly

I don’t understand that statement either could you give me a quick explanation

1 Reply

@kk4mds,

Quote:

nor does science disagree with you. Everything happens within the parameters of scientific laws. ITs creationists who say evolution is random, not science so, you see, evolution does not deny and intelligence however, nor does it support it.

So were the parameters for the scientific laws set up by a random process or an intelligently guided process?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

So were the parameters for the scientific laws set up by a random process or an intelligently guided process?

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know