I have found you can't argue with stupid, crazy or the faithful. This notion that evolution isn't based on hard scientific evidence obtained thru the scientific method across multiple scientific disciplines is simply another form of denial. We have are fair share of denialists around here on topics ranging from from evolution to the holocaust to climate change to racial equality to partisanism. they refuse to accept any facts or data that contradict their fallacious positions, project fallacious intransigence and "alternative facts" upon their opponents. And to the best of my knowledge rarely have any of these deniers, despite being bombarded by facts, actually changed their position. Perhaps one of the creationist/evolution deniers in this thread will provide an example of their fallacious projections in response.
Homo sapiens is said to have evolved from more primitive species primarily because of our larger brain, which is supposed to confer greater intellectual capacity, and hence greater ability to survive and reproduce. This argument fails for a number of reasons. 1. There is no correlation between intelligence and brain size. 2. Blue whales have the largest brains of any animal that has ever lived, and they’re not as smart as African gray parrots. 3. Monarch butterflies migrate thousands of miles from Mexico to California with no brain, no GPS, no map, which instruments humans need and use. Friends and people of common sense are invited to add to these challenges to the Darwinian tautology of two-step nonsense: random mutation, followed by *selection*.
1. Increased brain size in humanoids sure as hell does have an effect on intelligence. It doesn't have much intraspecies correlation. Can you tell the difference? 2. Blue whales are a not humanoids and NOBODY knows how smart a whale is in comparison to a parrot. The volume of research on cetacean intelligence has mostly focused on dolphins and that research has indicated that they are pretty damn smart. Of course comparison of avians and cetaceans is moot. 3. So monarch butterflies and every other kind of migratory animal travels without any instrumentation. As to the mechansims that enable such navigation, that is still under considerable investigation and depending on species it could be something simple like sun position or something more complex like following magnetic lines. I agree it has nothing to do with brain size or intelligence. You are invited to actually learn about these things which are not challenges to ToE, but in fact reinforces it since there are multiple biological mechanisms that have evolved in different species. .
And of course the mathematical probabilities of the many millions of beneficial 'random' mutations necessary for each and every step along the way are so huge it's not even remotely possible for them to be 'random', but never mind, it's all about other agendas, not science, so the fan club isn't interested in science, just assorted ludicrous ad hoc hand waves. they don't want empirical processes getting in the way of what's really important to them. Just have fun laughing at them playing I Touched You Last! and not producing a shred of genuine fact to back up their mythology.
What exactly are the mathematical probabilities? How did you calculate them and how did you determine it's not possible for them to be random?
I have often speculated that DNA appears to have "built-in" mechanisms capable of transferring behavioral knowledge across generations. I see no reason that it can't reward successful modifications to those behaviors with replication over time. Perhaps the our abstraction of "natural selection" is really simply an observation of the results brought about by the very nature and motivation of the stuff of all life itself. Just blueskyin'
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Golly, gee Mr. Strasser, you are right. We have never seen a monkey evolve into a human; we have never been able to change a monkey into a human. I guess you don't believe in Plate Tectonics either. After all, we have never seen a continent drift thousands of miles; we have never been able to move continents.
The history of the theory of continental drift is a good one. Alfred Wegener proposed it in the early 1900's and was immediately and vehemently rejected by geologists. Part of the reason was that Wegener wasn't a geologist so he was seen as an outsider trespassing on another's turf. But, the main reason his theory was rejected was because he couldn't explain how the continents drifted so far. It wasn't until the 1960's when plate techtonic theory matured that the theory of continental drift became widely accepted. We laugh at this today because the evidence back then was almost absurdly obvious (landmasses fitting together like puzzle pieces, fossil records, paleomagnetism, etc). I see similarities with the theory of evolution. Just because we don't have a satisfactory explanation for every little detail of evolution doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Yet I see many posters on here suggesting we do just that.
Here is another anecdote to caution against the blanket indictment of a theory because it does not adequately answer all of our questions. I think everyone (or at least most) would agree that quantum mechanics has matured into a fabulously successful theory. Yet, one of it's predictions is considered to be "the worst prediction in all of science". The cosmological constant (which Einstein originally included in GR, then removed, and ironically is now believed to be real) is observed to have a value that is 120 orders of magnitude (10^120) different than that predicted by QM. Yeah, we know something is really, REALLY, R-E-A-L-L-Y wrong with our understanding of GR, QM, or both. And we still owe much of our technological achievements to both. It seems that many people hold evolution to a much higher standard than even our most trusted and cherished theories. So yeah, if your expectation is that evolution should be infallible then you are surely going to be disappointed and will vehemently deny even the possibility that it might be correct. IMHO, that's the wrong mindset to have.
A thousand books could be written on the subject, but mostly it has to do with sexuality. "If it feels good do it" is the rallying cry of the libertines; and if course if we're all just new and improved chimps, the only thing wrong with it is not being able to get away with it. Since no theory is validated by the absence or deficiencies of other theories, that doesn't matter. Prove it. Actually, AFAIK it's a convenient conceit and nothing more. And of course I never said biology was wrong; but that aside, a linguist who studies nothing but Latin will know when what he's reading isn't Latin, and a linguist who studies all Earthly languages will know when what he's reading is not an Earthly language. Actually there are an infinite number of hard lines between red and blue, because both fall on one side or the other of anything that can be called yellow. Properly applied, neither analogy exposes any fault in my assertion. You're welcome. If you consider the absence of any accounting for the presence of self-awareness in humans exclusively a trivial detail, your sense of proportion is most charitably described as leaving much to be desired.
Aren't there other species that are self-aware? Regardless the point is well taken. Humans have a monopoly on so many traits and achievements. Why is it that humans leaped forward so far past any other species in terms of intellect and achievement? Sure, I admit, that's a deeply provocative question. But, it's not enough to dismiss evolution out of hand especially since there isn't a better alternative at the moment.
Obviously certain things such as rape, incest and pedophilia are, by the vast majority of humanity, seen as wrong and will likely remain as such. However aren't there certain paraphilias whose negative effects can be successfully circumvented? Also, I do not understand how the other theories don't matter. Why would we not try to find a way of knowing the truth about our origins?
The ugly truth about our origins is that when the solar system was born it was put up for adoption because it's parent galaxy hadn't even graduated from high school yet. Unfortunately no other galaxy wanted to adopt our solar system because earth was inhabited by some arrogant humans who believed that they were made in the image of some fictional creator. So the Milky Way is just the foster home for unwanted solar systems with planets that have delinquent species such as ourselves! Our original parent galaxy doesn't want anything to do with us at all! Happy now that you know the truth about our origins? And yes, that little fable has as much credibility as the theist creation BS about an intelligent designer being responsible for all of the species on earth.
Prove what? That there is no consensus or that there is no demarcation? The fact that there is no consensus as to the definition of life proves there is no hard line of demarcation between life and non-life. Even with your own analogy you prove my point. Yellow is that big "grey area" between red (non-life) and blue (life). Individual linguists, living one hundred years apart, would not have noticed anything other than minor changes - Microevolution. Yet after a thousand years, Latin is gone and we have Spanish and Italian - Macroevolution.
No. Actually, the absence of an alternative would be better than a theory which is so poisonous to the human spirit. If you think those comprise even as much as 1% of dehumanizing sexual activities, then pilgrim, you don't think too good. Would astrology be a science if the only alternative were phrenology?
OK evolutionists: here's your opportunity to demonstrate that your logical acumen exceeds that of Goldie Hawn by articulating what's wrong with this drivel.
I never thought of that particular point, the poison to the human spirit, before just now. It's brilliant. The absence of an alternative IS FAR BETTER than a theory which is so poisonous to the human spirit, and so scientifically indefensible. "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - Charles Darwin, to Harvard Biology Professor Asa Gray
Which other sexual activities have been dehumanizing? I'm sorry, I just need a clearer picture of what you meant. Also, I don't see what harm to humanity evolution as a theory has done. Aside from the fact that it may be scientifically inaccurate. Which other theories would you find suitable?
It is strange that many of the Christian right mock leftists with the term "special snowflake", when they themselves have made the assumption, and find it necessary, to believe that humans are valued beyond measure by the being who has created reality. How are humans never satisfied with giving meaning to things themselves? Why does there need to be justification from an outside source? That is subject for another time though. I wish to keep this thread focused on the subject of evolution's scientific accuracy.
You know very well what he meant. You're just being obsteperous. OF COURSE you don't "see what harm" it has done. OF COURSE NOT! Should anyone point out that harm, you will argue it and deny it to death. Darwinism was raised from its ashes by atheist Joseph Stalin. The two evils go hand in hand. And evil always begets more evil. Hence homosexuality is *justified* through evolution, and called "inherited." That is of course a bald-faced lie since two men cannot procreate. But when has the Left ever been concerned about real science. The lame demand that some "other theory" is necessary before abandoning one that is hopelessly inadequate and in fact destructive is the great pretense of the atheist Left. It is absurd, anti-intellectual and unscientific. If a theory fails, it must be abandoned, not retained until some replacement is devised.
I am actually confused about what he meant. Though now I think he was speaking in terms of human trafficking. Again, I apologize. If you were to explain what harm it has done, I may not deny it. There are many opposing views with logical explanations, it is only that I disagree with their approach. As for homosexuality, it does not need to be justified by evolution. It is considered pleasurable by human beings. A suspension of homosexual activities would be needed in the event of an emergency such as a massive decline in population. However the population of the world as a whole is increasing. I understand we must abandon failed theories. I did not suggest that the theory of evolution needed to remain if there was no other significant theory. I was only curious about which other scientific possibilities he knew of that explain our species' origin.
You are the first one I have ever encountered to make such a reasonable concession. For that I thank you and compliment you. Well done indeed. The militancy of atheists and Darwinists is so pervasive, so hateful, so condescending that it sets the tone for virtually all conversations. I expected you to be just another of them, but clearly you stand far above. My apologies to you. Best regards, CE
You can ramble all you want to. That doesn't change the fact that there is no consensus among scientists or philosophers as to the definition of life because there is no hard line of demarcation between life and non-life. Need I remind you that you said... Prove me wrong. Provide an all encompassing definition of life.
