Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

@rosborne979,

I'm guessing it was a prank.

@aperson,

Quote:

You are clearly a mean, obnoxious, arrogant, old bastard. I don't care what you think or what kind of mess you have made of your life. People succeed. Life is not just a ******* funeral. Get over yourself and stop trying to deter me from TRYING.

Trying without talent is subversive of the economic system. It's rate busting. If qualifications are awarded on the basis of "trying" heaven help us.

And it's only asserted anyway. It is also associated with bourgeoise values and usually assisted by parental "position". It can get pedantic and unimaginative. And corrupt.

I am not trying to stop you from trying. You came on a thread where people are free to express their views whether you like them or not. Vituperation is the answer to nothing. And so is giving out orders. You'll be wanting the site run on "praise ap" lines next.

And the best managers of football teams are mean, obnoxious, arrogant, old bastards who kick ass. Same with anybody who manages teams where results are objectively measured.

Society is a pyramid. That means some people have to "succeed" because the top positions would be vacant otherwise. The question is who succeeds. A society that gets the wrong people into those positions is on the slide in competition with societies which get the right people into them.

1 Reply

Spendi wrote:

A society that gets the wrong people into those positions is on the slide in competition with societies which get the right people into them.

Well, adding a little bit to this comment:

Accessing governance jobs is done usually through long careers, be that politicians or corporate jobs.

Everybody has his own "threshold for incompetence".

As a result, we are doomed to be governed by incompetent people..

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

I'm guessing it was a prank.

How could you tell?

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

As a result, we are doomed to be governed by incompetent people..

The least incompetent is all we can hope for.

Is it Weber's theory that we rise up the hierarchy until we reach the point of incompetence? The "perfect" is an ideal type.

I trust you don't go simply on "trying" or assertions to that effect.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Youve just recounted LAwrence Peters work in the field. He looked at the military and saw how the pyramid apex is created. I feel that, in order to rise to the top, just make no decisions at all and be comfortably visible "Lots of input with no responsibility".
Otherwise, unless its the MAfia, you will **** up now and again.

0 Replies

I think that the difficulties of the jobs at the top are such that whoever gets there is going to look incompetent.

But basically it is the electorate that are the incompetents.

0 Replies

@spendius,

I've gone beyond frustration. You are just boring me now. Your bullshit is really transparent. Maybe I'll talk to you again when I'm in bad mood or something and want a pointless argument. Cya spendi

aperson

0 Replies

Responding to Francis and Farmerman, the military structure, which works best when it is pyramidic (as in FM's "apex"), functions to facilitate mediocrity. The fact of the matter is that the arrival of brilliant people cannot be predicted or relied upon, so the most efficient system is one which protects itself from incompetence, and allows the mediocre to succeed. The best example of this is the Roman religio-civic-military system, in which everyone had a role, knew his role, and how to perform it. It was by no means static, the Romans absorbed, adopted and adapted new ideas all the time. But the point was to create a reliable system which allow mediocrities to succeed, and to assure survival of the system in the face of incompetence. This doesn't mean such systems won't produce disasters--General Lucas at Anzio is a prime example--but it means the system will likely survive disaster. The pyramidic system of military, perfected by the French in the 1780s and -90s, means that the staff structure of officers in each significant area responsibility at each level (regiment, division, corps, army) can assure a continuance of necessary function within the whole even if breakdowns occur within various parts. Your divisional supply officer, for example, can screw up, but the supply officers at corps and army level are still assuring the delivery of supplies, and the supply officers of the regiments will go looking for what they need, even if the klutz at division screws the pooch.

The best systems are those which assume no more than mediocrity, and plan to function under those circumstances. In those cases, the arrival of brilliance (Caesar, Davout, Napoleon) creates historic success.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

That rather works like a pyramid marketing scheme which must have been borrowed from the military.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

As pyramid marketing schemes are based on human stupidity and greed I think you have rather denigrated the military unless you think Minderbinder is in charge.

0 Replies

@aperson,

Evolution is mistaken science based on assumptions.

What causes mutations (radiation - where did all that radiation come from?). Science has never recorded any observed mutation as being positive. The creatures are always weaker and malformed - except in the fantasy world of comic books.

Reproduction shows that life comes only from life (children come from parents). This is the law of Biogenesis. It shows that life must have existed into the infinite past - from before the creation of the universe. For there to be life today life must always have existed. This is a scientific law - not a mere theory like evolution.

Genes are passed on from parent to child. Genes are sometimes damaged or lost but never have they been observed to be created to for a more advanced infant. How can a more complicated creature "evolve" without a way for new genes to be created? A genius programmer is required to program new genes. Programs don't just write themselves, don't ya know.

Natural selection removes genes (usually faulty ones) from a gene pool but it doesn't cause new genes to be created. It only serves to maintain a species genetic heath. It cannot lead to the creation of a new more complex species. New races are formed by breeding out genes. This is how pedigrees are formed but they are usually less healthy than cross-bread animals - because pedigrees are inbread.

Evolution is fataly flawed. Even a 5-year old wouldn't believe it. It takes years of brain-washing to fall for this trap.

I answered yes to all your questions but that doesn't make your view of evolution true.

I too will ask a few questions:

1. Is the evolution of cars and machines driven by (human) intelligence?
If so, then why isn't your view of evolution driven by an intelligence (/intelligent design)?

2. Does only life give rise to life?
Then an eternally living One must have given rise to life.

3. Has mankind from its beginnings believed in a ever-living God of creation?
Why haven't you believed the words of our ancestors that God (Father, Holy Spirit and Jesus) created all things?

4 Replies

@AndreNel,

AndreNel wrote:

I too will ask a few questions:

1. Is the evolution of cars and machines driven by (human) intelligence?
If so, then why isn't your view of evolution driven by an intelligence (/intelligent design)?
apples and oranges, you can't apply the same standards to machines and living organisms

2. Does only life give rise to life?
Then an eternally living One must have given rise to life.
oooh, that's deep

3. Has mankind from its beginnings believed in a ever-living God of creation?
Why haven't you believed the words of our ancestors that God (Father, Holy Spirit and Jesus) created all things?
belief is not a genetic trait, and there's no evidence as to what prehistoric man believed in

0 Replies

@AndreNel,

AndreNel wrote:

1. Is the evolution of cars and machines driven by (human) intelligence?
If so, then why isn't your view of evolution driven by an intelligence (/intelligent design)?

Because cars and living organisms are slightly different thing. You do know that cars don't reproduce don't you?

AndreNel wrote:

2. Does only life give rise to life?
Then an eternally living One must have given rise to life.

Or chemistry bridges into life. Hmmm, which is more likely, *poofism* or natural processes... Hmmm, which could it be...

AndreNel wrote:

3. Has mankind from its beginnings believed in a ever-living God of creation?

Do most little children believe in Santa Clause and other fantasy characters? Does that mean they exist?

AndreNel wrote:

Why haven't you believed the words of our ancestors that God (Father, Holy Spirit and Jesus) created all things?

Because the stories are quite obviously derived from even older myths which all conflict with a huge array of facts and general reasoning. In short, it's all clearly hogwash.

I think you're going to be a LOT of fun. Welcome to A2K Smile

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

what are you saying about Santa Crying or Very sad

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Santa doesn't exist. The tooth fairy doesn't exist. Only god exists, because the majority of humans on this planet believes that!

0 Replies

@AndreNel,

Quote:

Genes are passed on from parent to child. Genes are sometimes damaged or lost but never have they been observed to be created to for a more advanced infant. How can a more complicated creature "evolve" without a way for new genes to be created? A genius programmer is required to program new genes. Programs don't just write themselves, don't ya know.

Thats just flat incorrect. NEW GENES ARE created all the time. Chromosome 2 in the human genome, is an entire set of new genes that have infolded meric sections that contain new code all derived freom the fusion of 2 chromosomes of the chimpanzees genome.

As sean Carrol has shown with his research, there are but a few actual genes in an organism that control the body [lan. (8 HOX genes in the body plan of insects, to about 900 in a human) All the genes that separate us from the same structure of an insect are "new" in that they are infolded or transcribed differently and the original genes of HOX in an insect are in a "fossil " form. They are no longer used but are preserved on the genome as "junk" DNA. The decoding of the genome has really made the continuation of a Creationist mindset as archaic and stubbornly ignorant. SCience has proven that the genetic "toolbox" of all organisms is actually relatively small and that entire gene sequences are preserved and modified and used in totally new ways, thius obviating the need to even "Create" new gene sequences. Remember ALL life is the arranging and rearranging of only about 64 different nucleotides and 22 different proteins (2 of which are very rarely used at all). So its not difficult to recognize how the feedback mechanism for the usage of genes can be affected by the environmental pressures exerted onto the organisms body plan.
This will be the next big area of research IMHO, geneticists will be searching for the actual environmental feedback procedures in which evolution actually occurs and how the genome "bar code" gives instructions to the somatic cells to actually modify.

Ive been reading that the Rock Hyrax of the middle eats has the habit of using a community middn for defecation and urination. The population of hyraces will use the same toidy pile for thousands of generations. SO, some enterprising paleoclimatologists have reasoned that the plant remains that they can dig out of a hyrax midden should reflect climate changes and plant successions in an area for thousands of years.
WE MUST keep following this important research on hyrax ****.
Maybe spendi can get involved in this since he generates so many coprolites in his offerings.

1 Reply

@AndreNel,

Quote:

Natural selection removes genes (usually faulty ones) from a gene pool but it doesn't cause new genes to be created. It only serves to maintain a species genetic heath. It cannot lead to the creation of a new more complex species. New races are formed by breeding out genes. This is how pedigrees are formed but they are usually less healthy than cross-bread animals - because pedigrees are inbread.

Evolution is fataly flawed. Even a 5-year old wouldn't believe it. It takes years of brain-washing to fall for this trap.

YOU should actually try to read some of the mass of information on how genes actually work. Your assessment is not only incorrect, it is embarrasingly so. Its obvious that your mind has been washed exclusively by the preachings of some brain dead creationist ministry. Im sorry that, while you seem to believe in a personal God, you dont avail yourself of the gift of a wonderful brain that hes presented to you.

Might I suggest reading The Making of the Fittestor Relics of Eden , these are two easily digested books on how genes are created, modified, transcribed and how they interact in a body plan to reflect evolution.

GENES DONT CAUSE evolution, they reflect it. As Gould said "Genes are merely the bookkeeping of evolution"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Maybe spendi can get involved in this since he generates so many coprolites in his offerings.

No chance. This isn't the sort of science, if it is science, I'm interested in.

There's two sorts of knowledge. Of facts and of consequences. The first is a function of sense and memory, either individual or collective, and not to be argued with. It is History. Assuming the facts are accurately witnessed and recorded. There are two sorts of history too. The history of things influenced by the will of men, civil history, and of other things, natural history. When you try to use the ideas from the one to determine the other you have confused human nature with matter and that is absurd from the point of view of a well brought up and refined lady of dignity and renown who has a right to expect her position to be defended.

That England had lost six wickets by lunchtime on the first day of the Headingley Test Match in 2009 is a matter of civil history and that an African rat **** in the same hole down the ages and that the shitpile resulting contained remnants of its diet, which it would be difficult to imagine it not doing once one has discovered that its rectal orifice, its nipsy, is connected to its gob, is natural history.

The knowledge of consequences is called Science.

Dumb non-scientists often try to confound the two types of knowledge for their own advantage, not wishing to discuss consequences, by certain literary conjurings but these need not detain us on an intellectual thread such as this purports to be. Science is conditional and subject to reasoning and as such is a consequence of words and definitions, connections between them, affirmations, syllogisms and conclusions. Science is about words. Any question about the words or definitions results in opinions. As I have no opinions I can hardly be expected to engage my attentions with the opinions of others whose words and definitions are somewhat vague, not to say loose.

Quote:

some enterprising paleoclimatologists have reasoned that the plant remains that they can dig out of a hyrax midden should reflect climate changes and plant successions in an area for thousands of years.

There's nothing enterprising about that technique. Nothing difficult except maybe the getting of a generous grant to poke through rat **** deposits. Nothing original. Coprophilia, or morbid scatology, has a very long tradition regarding either digging through **** or reading about those who do with enthusiasm.

Or even a constant reliance on metaphorical uses of excremental allusions such as "dipshit" or arsholes speaking or containing heads up them with reference to any colleagues who might incur displeasure for not speaking of one with the appropriate respect.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

GENES DONT CAUSE evolution, they reflect it. As Gould said "Genes are merely the bookkeeping of evolution"

"Genes" is a word which some people use to attempt to maintain, sometimes to themselves in the really bad cases, that an irreducibly complex mechanism, such as a life form, can be lassooed by their intelligence and reduced to a concept they think they understand by the mere naming of something.

This something is said to convey traits from parent to offspring. It is an obvious fact that traits are so conveyed but how many traits are there in a complex organism such as man and how perfectly are they conveyed and do they remain constant. It's all very well for obvious things such as peas being green but what about the vast complexities involved in hand eye co-ordination speeds which are real things whereas the green colour of peas has nothing to do with the peas and everything to do with the receptors of the viewer.

Genes is a word used by people who like to think they know what they are talking about when in actual fact they hardly have any idea at all except in a most crude and rudimentary manner. Easily digestible one might say.

It is a species of domination by bluster.

1 Reply

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know