Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
P
PickyPicky
Guest
This is one of the most disturbing characteristics of so much of the rhetoric of those arguing against the theory of evolution: the rejection of the value of rational enquiry. The idea that learning about the history of life is “irrelevant” seems to me shocking and barbaric.
W
Wozza
Guest
I guess maybe Ed doesn’t have children: 'Dad…Edgar:
This is one of the most disturbing characteristics of so much of the rhetoric of those arguing against the theory of evolution: the rejection of the value of rational enquiry. The idea that learning about the history of life is “irrelevant” seems to me shocking and barbaric.
Where do mountains come from?
How come the sea is salty?
What’s a black hole?
Why is the sun hot?
What are clouds made of?
Why do moths like lights?
Why does icecream melt?
Why do I have green eyes and Timmy has brown?
Why is the sky blue?
How far away are the stars?
Why do whales need to breathe air…?
What a lot of useless questions! None of them will help you get on in life. Do you think that knowledge for its own sake is worth pursuing? You stupid boy. Go to your room. And if I catch you reading those books on evolution or cosmology again I will burn them!
T
Techno2000
Guest
Daddy is it true that Bacteria made itself, and that’s where Man comes from ?PickyPicky:
I guess maybe Ed doesn’t have children: 'Dad…Edgar:
This is one of the most disturbing characteristics of so much of the rhetoric of those arguing against the theory of evolution: the rejection of the value of rational enquiry. The idea that learning about the history of life is “irrelevant” seems to me shocking and barbaric.
Where do mountains come from?
How come the sea is salty?
What’s a black hole?
Why is the sun hot?
What are clouds made of?
Why do moths like lights?
Why does icecream melt?
Why do I have green eyes and Timmy has brown?
Why is the sky blue?
How far away are the stars?
Why do whales need to breathe air…?
What a lot of useless questions! None of them will help you get on in life. Do you think that knowledge for its own sake is worth pursuing? You stupid boy. Go to your room. And if I catch you reading those books on evolution or cosmology again I will burn them!
P
PickyPicky
Guest
No, child, bacteria didn’t make themselves. But the fact that you ask shows that understanding the history of life is relevant. I suggest you read about it.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I’m not sure I’d put it that way.Aloysium:
I know that some genetics researchers involved in finding cures for disease use the premise that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. This is rank pseudo-science … not to mention a waste of time and money.
Genetics researchers use genetics, which is a scientific field of inquiry. The theory of evolution does not play a role other than as a belief to which findings must adhere.
What we do share with chimps are common morphological traits, which has always been known, except now we know something of their basis in the genome.
The fact is that apes come from apes and human beings from human beings, and it always has been so from the beginning of each kind of organism. As relativity and quantum mechanics have revealed, the structure of physical reality does not conform to the sort of interactions that we encounter at the level of our bodily relationship with the world and the universe has clearly been shown not to have always existed in its current form. Likewise, when we consider creation from eternity, we expect to find things a bit different than what we consider as normal. How this plays out is that the physical structure of each creature was formed to express the capacities that belong to its soul, the existential overall kind of thing that it is in itself. This includes but is not restricted to its ability to the ability of each creature to participate, giving and taking, in its environment, as one aspect of life’s flourishing in great diversity.
Random mutations do not add to the code that constitutes the genome and contributes to the differences observed between different kinds of living being. Sexual reproduction does not suddenly appear by chance alterations to a code that was responsible for the division of an asexual organism. Random physical changes occurring as a result of toxins, radiation and the glitches or noise that exists in any system do result in change, by far more deleterious to the organism and its off-spring than serendipitously beneficial. And as to natural selection, we observe around us, with the serious loss of species, dozens going extinct every day. Both random mutation and natural selection exist today and reflect the power of death in this world, hardly the basis for creation.
Evolution is pseudoscience; biochemistry and genetics would not be. Looking at the data, without the prejudice and blinkers of evolutionary theory, a different picture emeges, contradicting the mythos of our times, and that picture is of creation.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is a statement of faith that has no basis. But I can give you an example outside of evolution where random chance plus selection produces order and information, like what the genome has. Are you interested?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.LeafByNiggle:
I not against scientific inquiry at all. Although I do believe evolutionary theories about the history of life on this planet will prove completely useless, because I believe that history was not the result of a completely natural process.
E
edwest
Guest
Most of what we take for granted today like cars, electricity, radio and some other things, were not formal research projects but people tinkering with and even devising equipment to the benefit of others. Ford, Tesla and others had limited funding but worked diligently. Tesla is unknown to most.
Man studied the movement of the stars for various practical reasons. He also studied weather patterns and determined ways to mark the passage of time. Scientists were wrongly baffled regarding the purpose of the Antikythera mechanism. It was obviously too advanced to them.
Man studied the movement of the stars for various practical reasons. He also studied weather patterns and determined ways to mark the passage of time. Scientists were wrongly baffled regarding the purpose of the Antikythera mechanism. It was obviously too advanced to them.
E
edwest
Guest
Very hard to explain. But there they are. Each layer of strata they pass through represents what? Thousands of years?
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
I’ve got a massive library. Most of those books involve applied science.
W
Wozza
Guest
You should spend less time posting here and spend some reading them.
E
edwest
Guest
I will post here as often as required.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I can’t tell if you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Spit it out man! Don’t be such a tease. I do read responses to my posts as I hope that others do mine. How other can we communicate?Aloysium:
This is a statement of faith that has no basis. But I can give you an example outside of evolution where random chance plus selection produces order and information, like what the genome has. Are you interested?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I didn’t want to waste your time if you were going to dismiss it out of hand just because it has nothing to do with evolution per se. But since you asked, here it is.LeafByNiggle:
Spit it out man! Don’t be such a tease. I do read responses to my posts as I hope that others do mine. How other can we communicate?Aloysium:
This is a statement of faith that has no basis. But I can give you an example outside of evolution where random chance plus selection produces order and information, like what the genome has. Are you interested?
When I was in high school in the 1960s I remember seeing an article by Martin Gardner in his “Mathematical Games” column that so inspired me I actually built the device described. It was a simple machine that could “learn” how to play as game. The game was simple. It was called Hexapawn. It was played on as 3x3 checkerboard with 3 black pawns lined up against 3 white pawns. The pawns could move like normal pawns in chess, including capturing the other pawns. It turns out there are only about 36 distinct board positions. So the “machine” consists of 36 matchboxes, each with a diagram of one board position on it. Inside the matchboxes were placed colored beads where each color represented one of the possible moves you could take from that board position.
The “machine” was operated by a person who would shake the appropriate box and take out a bead at random and play whatever move that bead represented. Not surprisingly, the machine did very poorly in playing this game since all of its moves were stupid random moves. But after each game, the person operating the machine would discard the bead that caused ended the game so that particular mistake would never be made again. Then another game would be played. Each time the machine played the game, it got better. After about 100 games, the machine would win almost every time.
Fast forward to 2017 and a group of nerds did the same thing with tick-tack-toe. Because this game is a little more complicated, it took 304 matchboxes to represented every game state. Please watch this entertaining video my Matt Parker at a public event where this contraption (called “Menace”) was tested.
…continued…
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
…continuing:
In both cases, the process of creating order and knowledge and information (all central to what the genome does for living things), starts with no order, no knowledge, and no information. Guesses as to how to play the game are arrived at randomly (by shaking the matchbox and taking out a random bead.) But the random guess is subjected to the trial of whether or not it leads to a win. Failed guesses are eliminated (just like bad mutations in a living genome are eliminated by natural selection.) The result is the structure starts to acquire information and order and knowledge of how to play tick-tack-toe.
Of course real genomes are tremendously more complicated that the game of tick-tack-toe, but then they have a counterbalancing advantage of providing billions and billions more experiments (most of which will fail) over millions of years. Our intuition of whether the number of experiments and the length of time is sufficient to accomplish what evolution claims, so we cannot discount the possibility of evolution just because is feels too unlikely.
In both cases, the process of creating order and knowledge and information (all central to what the genome does for living things), starts with no order, no knowledge, and no information. Guesses as to how to play the game are arrived at randomly (by shaking the matchbox and taking out a random bead.) But the random guess is subjected to the trial of whether or not it leads to a win. Failed guesses are eliminated (just like bad mutations in a living genome are eliminated by natural selection.) The result is the structure starts to acquire information and order and knowledge of how to play tick-tack-toe.
Of course real genomes are tremendously more complicated that the game of tick-tack-toe, but then they have a counterbalancing advantage of providing billions and billions more experiments (most of which will fail) over millions of years. Our intuition of whether the number of experiments and the length of time is sufficient to accomplish what evolution claims, so we cannot discount the possibility of evolution just because is feels too unlikely.
T
Techno2000
Guest
But, right from the start, the game had to be intelligently designed.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Did you watch the video?
- Status