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

@Krumple,

What logical reasoning I can't refute?

ros has had me on Ignore for years for that very reason. With him stood at a pub bar I would make a thin pulp slurry of his last post and he knows it.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

You're having the tantrum old girl. You talked about entities of "non reality". Challenged on it you start flouncing about ros as if we have all forgotten your invention of soul. (not original btw).

Once we have a "non reality" entity (soul) we can speculate that such a thing might transcend our bodily ignominy. Asserting that it could not is speculation as well but Pascal's Wager comes into play.

The materialist scientist does not, cannot, allow for non reality entities. Such things wipe the floor with the NCSE and its assorted fellow travellers. Such a scientist considers us all, himself included, as clockwork gumps cranked up by nothing but the endowment of evolution and the socialisation we have experienced. It's a very persuasive argument but is lost on the survival value of a society holding to the notion.

He would laugh at your "non reality" entity.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

The christian god is only two thousand years old, but other religions predate their god my thousands of years, and they believed their god was the "true" god. They prayed and emoted to their god the same way christians emote to their god. It's a human condition to believe there is some superpower greater than man. Humans even believed the sun, moon, trees, animals, mountains, rivers, and other idols to be a god. They lived their lives believing in their god, no different than christians.

Conclusion; there are no gods; only human emotion in believing their god created everything.

It's not much different than how people believe in their politics; they think they have all the answers of how governments should rule. They don't.

They're all man-made creations that only controls their subjective life.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

There is no subjective life to a scientist. No emotions either.

What you need is a psychoanalyst to explain it to you but I doubt anybody would take you on.

BTW--I learned the other day from CBS News that one of the first things Mr Obama did on entering the White House was to get the Home Brew kit up and running. I'll drink to that. We don't want any bloody water drinkers in charge.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I shouldn't be wasting my time responding to your idiocy, but I need to challenge your response to my post. All humans experience subjectivity - including scientists. Nuf said.

1 Reply

I was thinking the other day that if you credit God for the variety of animals and plants, rather than evolution, you are in effect saying 'God doesn't have much imagination,'

The consistency of form, the cladistics, the repetition of structures, the mundanity of energy systems. Couldn't he have whipped at least a flying unicorn, or a mermaid? Or something weirder than the best myth makers of olden times, or an average science fiction writer of modern times, could dream up?

I say theists should embrace evolution, if only to support their deity from the accusation he,she,it lacks creativity.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

No they don't experience subjectivity. They only think they do. It's a delusion. You don't know much about science do you ci?

You're up a gum tree. Batting for science and having your little subjectivity as well. Aaaaah!! It's touching.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

What makes you think theists don't embrace evolution? Their theism is the sort that enables them to **** on everybody else and make them do things properly. That's evolution. Their Deity is heap big medicine and has provided your computer on which you blaspheme His dignity. Or Hers if you're that way inclined.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

I even believe that the human biology has been screwed up royally with all the health problems associated with it.

hinge, You left out Superman. Mr. Green

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You're having the tantrum old girl. You talked about entities of "non reality". Challenged on it you start flouncing about ros as if we have all forgotten your invention of soul. (not original btw).

What the heck are you talking about? I was talking about people inventing things like souls and after life and gods being non-reality. I don''t get how a simple comment can be taken so badly.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

That happens to spendi often; it's probably after his daily trek to the pub. Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Krumple,

You said that things existing in the imagination consist of non-reality. What were you talking about?

A materialist, not a watered down one I mean, would laugh at the idea and consider it a twee, if understandable, affectation.

Watered down materialists can make up anything they wish to suit their convenience and all their thoughts in doing so are complex material objects involving physio-chemical processes.

1 Reply

@spendius,

The subject of evolution has been hotly debated for many years now. And a most notable situation is now taking place in the scientific community. The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.”

Another notable Paleontologist and prominent evoluionist, Niles Eldredge, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists. In other words, there is a total lack of agreement among scientists. Even among those who beleive in evolution. And most of these persons are not religious by any means. The question is thus raised, why is there such dis-unity of thought?

Well, part of the answer may lay in a comment made be a noted astronomer, Robert Jastrow. He stated: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”

But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?

A thought provoking question indeed.

2 Replies

@anthony1312002,

A tour de force of "intelligent design" propaganda. Evolutionary theory is not concerned with the origins of life, it only applies once life exists. You also present arguments which are versions of irreducible complexity. The basic flaw in your logic is that if these organs did not function as they do, they would not exist. Natural selection ruthlessly weeds out those attributes which hinder or fail to contribute to breeding opportunity. As well, natural selection quickly establishes and refines any attribute which does so contribute. What creationist web site do you rely upon for that drivel?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Well said my friend. But rest assured, I don't subscribe creationist philosopy. They have their own issues. I'm interested in true scientific fact. For example, for evolution to take place there must be cellular mutation. And not just any kind of mutation. There must be a slow accumulation of favorable mutations. Carl Sagan once stated that "Mutations—sudden changes in heredity—breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.”

It also has been said that mutations may be a key to the rapid change called for by the “punctuated equilibrium” theory. Writing in Science Digest, John Gliedman stated: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” But aside from such speculations, it is generally accepted that the mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time.
How do mutations originate? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.”

Yes, much needs to be worked out for the theory of evolution to be truly establised as fact.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Anthony's post is a copy of a creationist's reply on a website to Dave Gamble of skeptical-science.com. Gamble wrote the following about his experience:

Quote:

In the middle of an on-line debate a couple of days ago, I made the factual observation that there were zero scientific papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals that supported intelligent design. As a response by a Creationist, I was sent the following “evidence” that is apparently proof that evolution has now been discredited …
"The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."

***********************************************

....we have a quote by Francis Hitching from his book. The claim is made that he is an evolutionist and thus implies that he has some scientific credentials and used to believe in Evolution but no longer does, but thats an outright lie. Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the “Acknowledgements” of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: “I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years.“. Still think he might be a credible authority? Well think again, because if you dig even deeper you soon discover that Hitching is a complete kook. He believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection. This man is not a credible source for any statements on evolution.

The last portion of anthony's post:

Quote:

But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?

This was copied from a post by Zachriel at angel-zachriel.com that has apparently been floating around the internet for years:
http://healthtopical.com/nutrition-1/nutrition-1-4073.html

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

To be honest with you, I'm not familiar with that site and I really don't subscribe to their ideology. But the arguments that are made are sound not because they make them, but because other notable scientists agree. Please take a look at what I stated regarding cellular mutation.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

One last thought that should be considered involves an experement that involved the common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Few mutation experiments can equal the extensive ones conducted on this specimen. Since the early 1900’s, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased the frequency of mutations to more than a hundred times what was normal.
After all those decades, what did the experiments show? One result was that the clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.

Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.

The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how “the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. The journal states: “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.”
Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”

Really, when compared to true scientific fact, the evolutionary theory finds itself in a great deal of trouble.

1 Reply

@anthony1312002,

It matters not to me anthony that scientists are having disputes about these perplexing enigmas. Such is life.

In the schools, where the next generations are festering and fermenting, the subject is readily misunderstood and especially if brought to the attention of the little monsters by those whose attractions to it are due to the rejection of Christian inhibitions to their sexual proclivities. Which is usually the case in that strata of the population from which such teachers are recruited: the lower end of the liberal intelligentsia.

There are probably a whole host of matters that scientists are in dispute about but only this one ever finds its way to being inspected by the ignorant and for the very same reason I referred to in the last paragraph.

None of those other matters are so readily thought comprehensible by the average person and nor are they of such cultural significance as they are not involved in ridding us of inhibitions in sexual activity.

0 Replies

@anthony1312002,

anthony1312002 wrote:

Yes, much needs to be worked out for the theory of evolution to be truly establised as fact.

It already has been established at a scientific fact. Your sources and understanding are out of date by at least several decades if not a century.

You may not be a Creationist yourself, but you are reciting Creationist propaganda which has been dissected and discredited many many times already.

If you have a specific challenge to evolution which is personal to you and for which you don't have to cut/paste ancient propaganda, then we would love to hear it. Until then, please don't waste your time recycling all this old Creationist drivel.

3 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know