Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by jsmoke, Jun 24, 2017.
Something by David Icke perhaps?
Christian science books, obviously.
Or anything else that says what they want to read and with utter disregard for the truth.
I declare that humans were created by !duntharst, the famous Atalli animal designer, sent from the Atalli homeworld to a distant planet engineered to be mostly suitable for them and left to their own devices as an experiment and art installation. Edited highlights are still quite popular on channel 14983.
I say it's true, so it must be true. It's far more plausible than 4K8KW10's position. There isn't any evidence for either position, but their position contradicts evidence and mine doesn't.
I want to see an animal, standing on its two legs upright, and starting to use its brain for something similar to what we do. Somehow, I think that is possible only after a divine intervention.
Because neither cats nor lions, nor monkeys will ever do it.
Well apart from various birds, various monkeys etc using tools, and in some cases learning how to do various tasks, then combining that learning in new ways so that when confronted with a more complex task they can work out how to do the different tasks in the correct order.
Of course they're slightly limited by the fact they're still a long way behind having the appendages that make tool use easy, and the size/complexity of the brain (IIRC birds have a more dense neural structure compared to mammals which may explain why some birds are pretty smart, Corvids especially).
Not to mention you're not going to see any animal advance quickly from basic tool use/understanding of the enviroment to what we do, if just because it'll take millions of years and countless generations where such abilities are a useful survival trait for it to start to happen to any degree.
This is amusing.
You could witness a series of animals, mammals, stand on their hind legs and develop large frontal hemispheres over successive generations but you would have to observe multiple organisms over the past 85 million years.
Cats, lions or monkeys will never evolve into humans because that is not how evolution works. Organisms branch off. Our cousins are chimpanzees, primates.
Before you discount it - it would be a good idea to actually understand the theory of evolution first - even if it appears at odds with your faith.
After all you would expect your faith to be challenged all the time.
My post 710 demonstrates that refuting evolution (by your post you are refuting something you do not yet fully understand) and this is at odds with religious leaders in the 21st Century who accept evolution and the bible for what it.
It really is a crime not to use your large cerebral hemispheres and the extremely powerful PC in your sig built by scientists to navigate to amazon and purchase some contemporary science texts and watch a few youtube vids to deepen your understanding.
Incidentally, scientists have demonstrated evolution by natural selection in a laboratory experiment.
Not really, you're bringing something completely different into the discussion (although inbreeding can and often does have bad outcomes, but when you have to go everywhere by foot you tend to have fairly small population groups that may not intermingle much)
Random mutation, recessive genes and things like the fact you might be able to see fine when you're first old enough to start to have offspring but be effectively blind (without assistance) by the time you're 30, at which point you may have a dozen kids who have spread out to neighbouring villages/farms and the genes that cause the sight problems might not show up again for a while.
Also sometime you might have one condition that is a negative to survival and chances of breeding, but it may be offset by several other things that offset it, for example being weaker than normal may not be a massively bad thing if you're in a group but are say of higher intelligence or dexterity and thus might be better at using a tool or spotting dangers and reacting to them.
IIRC sickle cell anaemia is a good example of that, from memory if you've got one half of the genetic mutation that causes it you can live comfortably and it offers some protection from malaria (or something similar), which increases your chance to survive until you've reproduced, but if you've got the genes from both parents it can cause massive problems,
Then you've got the whole thing of recessive and dominant genes, where you can quite happily live as a carrier of a "bad" gene, and your offspring can be fine as long as they only have one half of the bad genes passed on from you (and there may be a 50/50 chance of them getting your good ones), but if your partner has the bad gene and passies it on as well it causes an issue.
It happens with things like skin colour as well, IIRC there have been cases where two parents of one skin colour have had a child who was of a different colour despite DNA testing showing no funny business was involved (and sometimes researching the family trees finds out that one or both had an ancestor a few generations back who was of a different skin colour).
a bit off topic, but could Bad eye sight be used as a argument Against Intelligent design. after all if you intelligent enough to be able to design such a system, why would you design one that fails/gives so much trouble
That would be an assumption as to the agenda/intent of the designer (if one existed) - what if the end goal was to motivate the organism to develop technologies to compensate for it? things like that have no weight for or against.
Humans simply never evolved to have good eyesight, there was no evolutionary pressure to do so. Humans evolved as foragers and scavengers. You don;t need good eyesight to pick buts form a tree or roots form the ground. Meat consumption was much lower than it is today, and was frequently insects, larvae, worms, or scavanged carcasses. Humans were to slow and weak to directly attack prey, instead we used intellect and endurance. We would track animals and then chase them slowly over hours and hours until the animal collapsed form exhaustion or over heating. Moreover, we have always been a social species so foraging and hunting were done in grouops, reducing the need for good eyes sight.
But really, this is just another of the standard misunderstandings of evolution. Darwin never mentioned survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is not part of evolution. Evolution is not some optimization process with a goal towards a more optimal species, without any imperfections. Evolution is the exact opposite, it is the elimination of species that can not successful reproduce. However flawed a species might be in absolute terms, as long as enough offspring are generated for the next generation to survive then there is little pressure to make changes. Adaptions occur because the environment changes, typically some adaptions leads sub-groups to have an easier time finding sufficient food or raising young to breeding age. In humans that was not eyesight but intelligence and social structure
I’m still waiting for a list of books I should read that will give me the truth about evolution. This is SC so you are meant to back up your statements.
I think it does directly rule out a designer.
We know that the underlying physical processes which result in gene mutation occur via random mutation, we also know that the randomness of these processes occurs via mechanisms such as brownian motion.
With that in mind, if the processes which result in the mutations, occur with the same chance as rolling a dice, or any other random ungoverned process - then no designer is present, because not only is there zero evidence of design, but no need for one to make the system work.
You could put the designer further back and say "Well the designer is controlling the physics to make it look natural" but that sort of argument just becomes an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.
its more about filling a niche...a species evolves to fill a gap, to exploit it and be successful...it then has no need to evolve beyond that point as you may come into competition with something else
and as far as intelligent design....the fact that you can still bite yourself when eating your own food seems to me something that you wouldnt design in !!
I cannot comment on the specifics of evolution - just that we, the humans, did not "evolve" from any apes or monkeys, or whatever you call it.
You can read Lloyd Pye for a beginning. Or watch his lectures on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8 , pdf - Intervention Theory Essentials by Lloyd Pye
Also, watch the Ancient Aliens series by History Channel.
If we had evolved from apes, our society structure would have been different, I guess with no slaves pressures from the richer circles upon the workers.
ROFL, I can't stop laughing omg.
I start playing that video, and I get some text that says "INTERNATIONAL UFO CONGRESS PRESENTS:" so we're off to a good start..
I skipped through to 52:24 and we've got fake videos of bigfoot being used as evidence..
I didn't even pay attention to that headline - just watched several times the contents - and they go for about 2 hours!
This is just trolling the adults who understand the theory of evolution.
That doesn't make it wrong. But neither is there present any evidence of a specific nature.
Even with Niches, there is zero pressure to exploit the niche if the current environment is sufficient for the species to procreate at a sufficient rate and resources are not constrained. What tends to happen is there is a lot of competition for resources, so niche areas become viable when there isn't enough food.
I slightly disagree. Humans have evolved good eyesight, "good" in an evolutionary sense, i.e. conferring an advantage in survival in the circumstances an animal lives in. Normal human eyesight is a good generalist eyesight for a duirnal general purpose animal. Pretty good for differentiating between plants, fairly good for detecting predators early enough to usually not get eaten, fairly good for detecting potentially dangerous smaller animals such as poisonous snake, scorpions, etc. Fairly good for detecting food and water sources from some distance away. Fairly good for tracking animals for persistence hunting.
I have seen a suggestion that a more accurate very brief summary of evolution is "survival of the good enough". That sounds right to me.
Separate names with a comma.