Top Ten Reasons Not To Believe In Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution … (Page 5)

MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: Oh thanks, Nicotina. Yes, I mistakenly replied to a post on a previous page.

Regarding most any form of string theory, I think the foundation is wrong and the assumptions basically begin with assumptions of 4-D spacetime already. To me that seems like simply piling more onto something that's already questionable.

Look at experiences and learning directly - what's really available to work with in life? It's a lot of direct first person experiences, even reading a theory out of a textbook is still using ones own ability to perceive colors and forms to recognize letters as well as ones cognitive abilities to recognize words and construct meanings of these relative to vocabulary and whatever experiences in life one has encountered and this should be true of any physical theorist sitting around trying to contemplate how it all works.

So what's really the beginning "source" of all of that? It's fundamentally a stream of perceptual information over time. If someone had no physical senses, there would be no reason to even believe some perception of being within the physical universe could appear possible.

My ideas are similar to string theories in one respect, there's a linear sequence of experiences over time that we retain via growth, learning etc. and it possesses an equivalent of a shared quantum unit (similar to a planck unit of time or distance) and I've managed to actually generate some quite interesting images by simulating some ideas of resonance within a closed/deterministic system that don't appear far off of being landscape or seascape images (but they're fundamentally motionless, there really would be no time in those images and they'd be 'stillshots' and I think more or less any form of deterministic computation (yes, including any deterministic physical theory) could be 'mapped' to the same class of structure.

The "problem" (it's not really a problem though) is that there's no explanation for how time passes and that appears to be a fundamental mismatch between any form of precise logic (which fundamentally describes static objects and doesn't allow for dynamics ... it's basically the "how do you get something from nothing" question?

If there is no precisely logical manner to describe how change is possible, then that leaves those changes as something effectively formless, creative and energetic ... time doesn't fit into any bottles or boxes and logic can't tell it where to go, instead all the forms, structures, logic etc. simply provide the terrain of spacetime.

There are "rules" for the universe though and it appears part of this gives rise to the electromagnetic spectrum and discrete wavelengths of phenomenon similar to distinct bands of energy related to primes and number theory and there are many ways in which controlled aspects are restricted to ways in which information can be transformed (so conservation of energy/information exists in terms of interactive/controllable components).

I'm still missing a lot of the more complex 'puzzle pieces', but I've got enough to know I'm on the right track and it's the type of theory that doesn't require much 3rd party involvement to work with. It only needs first person experiences of events and how information regarding these can be organized into a space of synchronized motions and interacted with.

The theory also implies that there could be quite a bit of validity to things that would normally be deemed metaphysical or spiritual and that's really been something enjoyable to discover

Anyway it's still a work in progress, but I've been trying to orient it more closely along the lines of not simply "how things appear to be" but instead "how things should be" and that's a form of theory that seems to have some value to it beyond simple curiousity of how things could work.

We can go past M-Theory and integrate a lot more and why stop at the theory. How does it apply to life and does it also have a "solution"? Now there's a cool idea!
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Risen says:
"What happened millions of years ago is rather off-limits for us to confidently prove or disprove. The evidence for something dated that far back is very indirect, therefore never really considered 'true science'."

That's simply untrue. Is there some magic number you have where you say, "If it's newer than that, it's provable. If it's older than that, it's unprovable?"

Care to address my comments about peer review, and replication and variation of experiments and observations, and the skeptical, questioning process that all scientific conclusions must withstand? You conveniently avoided replying to that.

"But in a hypothetical sense, just for the sake of this discussion, i will bring up an interesting counter-argument i've read against the theory of Evolution.. The ideal of Darwin, the idea of natural selection, is an 'all for one' philosophy for any animal. An animal will do whatever it has to in order to continue the lineage, this is Darwin's 'must' for the concept of Evolution..

Now, what defies Darwin's idea, is altruism. Altruism is something i'm sure all of us have witnessed, in animals as well as ourselves. This is fatally contrary to the understanding of Evolution."

You're attributing animals with the ability conceive "philosophy" or "altruism"? Sorry, but that's inane. People can do that. Not animals. Not in any meaningful way that defines them, as traits like that define people.
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>In many cases dealing with the teaching of Evolution, some people will demonstrate this opinion as fact, then mock whoever disagrees with it.. sort-of an irony.

Haha awfully revealing risen; So do Churches and such treat their alternative opinion as fact? If so, do you criticize them as well?

>>>like millions of years ago in units of time we can't even measure

Yes, we can.

>>>what happened millions of years ago is rather off-limits for us to confidently prove or disprove.

I gotta fresh idea for ya risen- WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN WHY OUR CONCLUSIONS ARE WRONG? Don't make blanket statements, say that its impossible to judge the world based on physical evidence through geologically, astrophysics, fossils, and numerous of others and jump up and down, covering your eyes and screaming "lalalalalalalala"

What I find funny is, you say its SOOOOOO far away that we cannot make any serious claims on the past; But does that stop you from making religious claims from that far ago? Of course not.

The problem isn't that we're making claims that are too far in the past to judge- its that you disagree with our judgments. Don't hide behind non-existent walls. We can judge things older than a million years.

>>>The evidence for something dated that far back is very indirect, therefore never really considered 'true science'.

LMAO! Says who?
-------

>>>I no longer read your posts.

I don't blame you. Everyone in here is talking about evolution EXCEPT Steve. He's a spammer. It'd be a good topic if that's what this topic is about. But its not.

------

>>>Steve ,interesting comments ,Keep them coming

Spirit, I was hoping you could explain some of the issues I have with your concept of an unevolving man. How did man survive an Earth that had no air, trees, or large animals to feed on? Did he magically appear later on, or just since the beginning?

Why is there no evidence of man past 10 million years ago, but evidence for other animals?

Why can man not evolve? Why the distinction? What about seemingly out of place organs, such as the Appendix? What stops man from being the only lifeform from evolving, like other animals? Why are there animals that are so much alike man, but naturally evolved, such as chimps? If animals can evolve to use tools, why is the concept of them continuing this development completely out of line?

You seemed to gloss over these questions as unimportant.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Sits, you responded - "That's simply untrue. Is there some magic number you have where you say, "If it's newer than that, it's provable. If it's older than that, it's unprovable?""

It really is the case. The people who really grasp the theory of Evolution, understand it to be an idea, requiring a little bit of faith. I'm not trying to knock down someone's idea here, i'm just trying to fend of the cliche, that if someone doesn't believe in Darwin's idea of Evolution, then there stuck in the 1800s.


Sits - "Care to address my comments about peer review, and replication and variation of experiments and observations, and the skeptical, questioning process that all scientific conclusions must withstand? You conveniently avoided replying to that."

I answered this the following post.. I said people aren't recreating the wheel, they are taught the perception. People don't simply come up with the Evolution idea through independent observation.. people understand the perception of Evolution, then they find or make research, that goes along with the idea.


You said - "You're attributing animals with the ability conceive "philosophy" or "altruism"? Sorry, but that's inane. People can do that. Not animals. Not in any meaningful way that defines them, as traits like that define people. "

If you say animals do not show altruism, then that's nuts. There are countless examples of such behavior, in land and in sea. Man being attacked by sharks, and dolphins (almost reliably) come to the rescue. Dogs sacrificing themselves to protect their owners. As well as people, putting themselves in danger to help others around them in times of crisis'.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: "if someone doesn't believe in Darwin's idea of Evolution, then there stuck in the 1800s."

Well, I could be snarky and say that you're still stuck in the Dark Ages. But ignoring modern science is essentially being stuck in the past (well beyond the sixties )

"I said people aren't recreating the wheel, they are taught the perception, they don't just simply come up with the idea of Evolution through independent observation."

That's how you address the idea of scientific peer review, etc.? (shrugs) Whatever ... I think you're dodging.

"If you say animals do not show altruism, then that's nuts. There are countless examples of such behavior, in land and in sea. Man being attacked by sharks, and dolphins (almost reliably) come to the rescue. Dogs sacrificing themselves to protect their owners. As well as people, putting themselves in danger to help others around them in times of crisis'."

I crafted my statement VERY carefully. As I was making it, I thought, with amusement ...

"Lassie? What's wrong, Lassie? Timmy's stuck in a well, Lassie? Take me to him, Lassie! Good girl, Lassie!"

So I said, "Not in any meaningful way that defines them, as traits like that define people." I'm sure it's meaningful if you're Timmy, and stuck in the well, but dogs, as a whole, dolphins too, aren't wired to do that and think that way.

That syndrome is anecdotal, and probably often as not, false. The person wakes up with their dog barking, and finds their house on fire.

"Rex SAVED MY LIFE!" they say in wonder. Well, the house was on fire. I'm guessing Rex would have been barking if his owner was there or not.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Well Sits, what i was getting out with Altruism is, it defies Evolution. If Evolution is true, then natural selection is required. This means humans, animals, will do whatever necessary to survive, to continue their lineage. Under no circumstances, will they risk their own life, to protect another.


Altruism is crippling to the idea of Evolution, because whichever animal (Lassie or such) sacrifices their well being to come to the aid of another, defies natural selection, this opposes the whole concept of Evolution. And we have seen animals sacrifice themselves for another throughout history.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Silliness. You're applying the "Lassie" syndrome as if it defines entire orders of animals which would never do such a thing. It's one of the lamest arguments in the rather large assortment of lame arguments I've ever heard.

You're saying that because the dog barks in the fire, 99 percent of all biologists, zoologists, and just about every other (scient)ists, are all wrong.

Lame.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Sits, you really have no grasp of Altruism, even though i just thoroughly explained it. You keep comparing these 'dogs barking at a fire' incident, when that really isn't in the definition. As i said of Altruism, it is sacrificing ones well being to help another. This regards the more serious cases where one is being attacked, his life is on the line, the dog jumps in and defends his owner at the possible expense of his own life..

And this extends to people as well. How many times have we read about a person saving another?, or jumping into life threatening situations, instinctively, to aid someones rescue? This is altruism, and this defies the principal of Evolution.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Jeezus ...
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Dude, you're so transparent.

I was wondering ... "Why is this guy so adament on this 'altruism' thing?"

In exhasperation, I Googled:

"evolution and altruism"

By Garsh! What did I find!?!

Turns out that Creationists have latched onto that idea, same as that falacy you guys pass around pertaining to "irreducable complexity," with the mouse trap as the example. Or the "impossibility" of the evolution of an eye. And, of course, like the mousetrap, or the eye, the answer, while not intuitive, is rational. And there's a TON of information on this subject.

It turns out that it's part of the "survival of the species" mechanism. A good example is a rodent, such as squirrels, prarie dogs, whatever, that are hunted by large birds. One of the rodents sees the bird, and barks out an "alarm" sound that warns the others. In the process, that rodent makes draws the birds attention, and as a result, makes itself more likely to become the prey.

This is the mechanism working within the species. When the mechanism occurs outside of the species, such as the dog that attacks it's master's attacker, it's the same mechanism at work. Animals don't consciously think to themselves, "My master isn't my own species, so I will/won't put myself at risk to help save my master."

The instinct, the behavior that has been inherited as part of the natural selection process, simply kicks in, and they act.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Sits - I guess Altruism isn't a secret word, i imagine many people are aware of it.

You continued to describe Altruism, and what you found in your googled research is, animals don't conscientiously know they're using it?.. is that really the argument against it..?


Altruism is the opposite of 'look out for number one', a Natural Selection requirement. They appear to desperately try to mesh/mold/melt Altruism into a Natural Selection "mechanism", which is rather ridiculous. Altruism opposes all forms of Natural Selection.
13 years ago Report
0
Geoff
Geoff: BS

Altruism and natural selection are not mutually exclusive, certainly not in an intelligent species such as humans.

There are multiple examples of where altruism benefits in the individual in passing on their genes. Many species display altruistic behaviours in their social interaction, and not always with expected reciprocation.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Risen, you're grossly oversimplifying, and you're just repeating yourself, tiringly so. Just repeating an incorrect statement won't make it correct.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Geoff, there may be some rare incidents where Altruism ends up helping the being.

But, it doesn't matter what the outcome is. The intuitive thought is, i am jeopardizing my well being, to help another.. This rebukes Natural Selection. They are, polar opposites.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: haha Sits,

If you don't have an answer for Altruism, you can just say so, and i won't continue to discuss it here, nor will i rub it in. And you can continue this forum topic with other contributers. But, pointing and calling it false, without having a substantial explanation as to why, is just wrong man..
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: I provided the answer. Is it invisible on your page? Pretending I didn't is no better than repeating the same thing over and over.
13 years ago Report
0
Koko_Krunch
Koko_Krunch: 'If you say animals do not show altruism, then that's nuts'

Are you saying that every living creature has the innate virtue of altruism? If thats the case, then there is no need to follow the morality preached in the bible.

'The people who really grasp the theory of Evolution, understand it to be an idea, requiring a little bit of faith.'

This is an argument from pure ignorance. There is no faith involved. Evolution is supported by empirical evidence.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Sits - that half hearted google reply you gave wasn't an answer, it was.. well it was sad. The reply you gave was more like a philosophical twist on Altruism, that really wasn't worth pasting on this forum. It did however make Altruism look that much more defying of Evolution.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Ah Koko, you seem to be the stereotypical believer in Evolution. What bit you know, you hold as fact, and whoever doesn't believe in it, is stuck in the 1800s, yes? Quite an irony.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Okay, okay.

You're right.

Thousands, or probably millions, of scientists are wrong.
13 years ago Report
0
_Nicotina_
_Nicotina_: Well said Koko.

Risen, could you please show me some proof that animals (one of them being h#~&-sapiens ) are not capable of being altruistic?

It seems obvious that animals are inherently altruistic, as it increases the chance of mating and propagating the species. Which would fall well within the theory of evolution. Propagation being the driving force of all life forms.
13 years ago Report
0
XFixYourBrainX
XFixYourBrainX: Missing evidence in evolution.

There is no such thing!

If so where is the missing links?

Easily be said, they havent been found yet.

2 plus 2 equals 5, why?

It just does, the evidence hasnt been found yet.

Wait there is evidence...


It's just missing.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Well, no. It's there.
13 years ago Report
0
XFixYourBrainX
XFixYourBrainX: Right...
13 years ago Report
0
XFixYourBrainX
XFixYourBrainX: Your best answer based on what knowledge?
13 years ago Report
0