McBell
Unbound
Seems to me it has as much validity as all the other claims of "one true god"...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's most vexing problem
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
That is true. All are equal under belief. My belief is no different.
There is no proof that small changes are necessary for one species to evolve into another.
Sometimes a creature evolves to be unable to mate with a related creature. For example, there are some insects who are physically incapable of copulation due to the geometry of their genitalia. At this point, the number of compatible mates is greatly reduced. Reduced mates causes inbreeding and inbreeding causes mutation. Mutation is either good or bad, and the bad mutations die out, and the good mutations live on because of natural selection.
It could be that the sudden change of DNA from bonobos and humans was rapid. If those few missing link bones rotted away in acid soil (as most skeletal remains did in Africa), we may never see the bones of missing links.
Neuropteron says: "do not expect me to read reams of information." Facts are futile?
Some evolution supporters have PhDs.
Neuropteron says: "if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to suddenly come into existence."
Two pairs of chimp chromosomes merged to form one pair of human chromosomes. This is why we can't mate (and why we are separate species). However, horses and donkeys can mate despite being separate species, producing a mule offspring. Rarely mules can have babies.
Obviously the merger of a pair of chromosomes was a sudden and major disruption in DNA, and must have resulted in many physical changes in apes to form humans. If so, the "gradual" change hypothesis fails.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Well of course we can explain why we (along with the whole of science) accept the theory of evolution. (It is not a matter of "fervent belief".)
But what's the point, when you freely admit you have made zero effort to find out about it for yourself?
I have lost count of the times a creationist has demanded on a forum, as you are doing, that the scientifically literate people explain the evidence for evolution to them. But it is all easily available. It is not hard to digest. Very few technical terms. No maths at all. So anyone with a genuine interest in understanding will have done some reading for themselves already. Apparently you haven't. So one is left wondering what your motive is in asking this faux-naive question.
You claim there is a "logical explanation" that challenges evolution. But what is this logical explanation, given that every supposed instance of "irreducible complexity" has been shown to be false? And how can you judge whether it is a valid challenge when, by your own admission, you have not bothered to find out what the evidence for evolution is?
So, you come forward with your theory that casts doubt on evolution and we can discuss that. But nobody here is going to indulge you by wasting their time to paraphrase explanations of evolution that you can perfectly well read for yourself, in 15 minutes, anywhere on the internet.
Irate State
Äkta människor
Isn't that the equivalent of a kid yelling to another "you have a stupid frog face la la la la la" while covering their ears?
Neuropteron
Active Member
Not really, I was hoping for an answer to my premise in your own words, not a demand to do more research.
The answers can reveal the level of maturity of the respondent as well as the grasp of the subject discussed.
Irate State
Äkta människor
Totally agree, posting over well discussed points in the theory without knowing they were already addressed and refuted says a lot. But since suggested further research is out of the question, I'll retreat into the shadows. Have a good one.
Neuropteron
Active Member
Hi,
Thank you for your response.
You have eloquently explained the ideology behind the theory of evolution.
We should unreservedly believe a higher class of men called scientist since we are incapable of understanding their opinions.
We should unquestionably abandon any hope or belief in a loving creator since this class of higher intelligence makes a perfect replacement of the requirement that the clergy class made on us.
The creed is believe without question.
The question, for me, remains. Why is it that I can easily understand (in laymen term) clarification concerning objections to evolution (by scientists), but are told that I never will understand evolution itself because of lack of education?
McBell
Unbound
*puts on chest waders*
**climbs up onto pontoon boat**
Ok, ready for your next post...
Neuropteron
Active Member
It's difficult to ignore evidence when none is given.
I've read carefully the Origin of Species by R Dawkins, I could not find a single shred of factual evidence for evolution in it.
However I did find much mockery aimed at those questioning evolution.
Dawkins and evolutionist seem to be of the opinion that saying "it's a fact, everyone know it, if you don't believe in it you're stupid" constitute a type of substantiation. It's not.
Heyo
Veteran Member
The opposite is the case. The creed of science is that everyone should be able to understand a scientific theory - given the necessary work and intellect.
Lack of education is not a fate, it is a choice. Your lack of education is not in evolutionary biology or biology in general, it is in science. You admitted so yourself. And you specifically asked not to be educated.
It is as if you asked a mathematician to explain the intricacies of calculus without first teaching you arithmetic (which you don't and don't want to understand).
And it is also obvious that you didn't understand the "objections to evolution (by scientists)". If you did, you would have also understood that those objections have been refuted (by scientists).
So, it's not that you will never understand evolution because of lack of education.
It is that you will never understand evolution, if you refuse to be educated.
Heyo
Veteran Member
No, you haven't.
"On the Origin of Species" is by Charles Darwin. Richard Dawkins has also written books, here is a selection: Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia
Neuropteron
Active Member
Hi,
I am told by people much smarter than I that in order to truly understand ICS function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a bilological IRS phenomenon - such as sight, digestion, blood clotting or immunity- must include its molecular explanation.
Darwin could only consider the anatomical structures to explain IRS since the biological and biochemistry involved to truly understand these system were only understood 150 years later.
Interestingly any explanation that attempts to support evolution will always restrict itself to anatomical structures as I have seen in response to this OP.
The problem is that anatomy is, quite simply irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the biolocular level.
Shortly after 1950 science advance to the point where it could determine the shapes and properties of a few of the molecules that make up living organisms. The cumulative results show clearly that life is based on organic "machines" made of molecules Most of these molecules are IRS's in themselves.
That means that attempting to explain for instance the eye or a wing on a anatomical level is far from explaining how evolution got to that point on a biological, molecular and chemical level.
How does evolution explain how a molecule suddenly appeared? the answer is they cannot, because it is an complex IRS (a machine) of many hundreds of part, each dependent of each other.
It's like if you found a rock in a field. It would be possible to claim the rock has been there since the beginning of time. However if we replace the rock with a watch, that claim is no longer valid. Someone had to engineer it and put it in the field.
Neuropteron
Active Member
You are right, it was "the Blind Watchmaker" that I read, my mistake.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Humans are just human consciousness.
The flaw in science is the human who pretends they know everything.
As it takes group agreement to placate what is agreed upon as to be informed.
By human for humans as humans. The flaw the group control. Always was.
The first earth theory was about earths mass and how to use it in machine conditions designed by humans.
First notice your claim you knew God the earth. When you did not. You realised how to use and cause change by its radiating radio wave transmitters. Visionary. First theism.
The story science as practiced by humans only.
So to theory you have to be the present as a human.
Ignored as self evident relevant advice.
About theism. You already exist looking back pretending. As it is pretence claiming I know. Ignored as self relevant human advice.
Just because the practice superior thinking is group imposed for group purpose.
In the past the human theist scientist used a spiritual defence. To claim I am superior by the status told. I theoried as God told me the advice in science of how and why.
You therefore are not allowed to argue. Is the exact same mentality still used today.
A human conscious warning. Hypocrites and self idolisers. Humans.
Hypocrites as they explain why they believe they are advised when it is only theories in fact just stories of personal beliefs.
Saying the planet advised me is the hypocrite themself. Same God ancient theist. O earth sciences.
Which led to modern day theist stating it was not intelligent to preach falsified human science methods. As if you by thinking speaking invented the presence of all life.
Yet the gods in theory had been human applied science methods in theism. The history of theism was flawed. As humans are flawed yet egotism denies it is flawed.
The human warning in science was about the human themself.
So the consensus decided no man is God. The consensus said never give God a name again. O earth function. Don't thesis about dead things of the past theism itself and don't look back as a science theist relating reactions.
Claiming the medium told me. Being the gas status heavens.
As we live owning the gift of life presence of self human and to honour your human life and parents only. Was a teaching for human survival versus theism.
Which you 100 per cent ignore as your own human advice.
A human is first a human.
A theist is just a storyteller who uses sophist words to cunningly contrive by their presence and stories about our life's destruction. By not first honouring self presence.
Instead all theories involve non bodily healthy whole human presence.
The warning to everyone.
We are not your theories we are present whole and self owned.
Was the scientific analogy of the scientific human psyche.
The flaw in science is the human who pretends they know everything.
As it takes group agreement to placate what is agreed upon as to be informed.
By human for humans as humans. The flaw the group control. Always was.
The first earth theory was about earths mass and how to use it in machine conditions designed by humans.
First notice your claim you knew God the earth. When you did not. You realised how to use and cause change by its radiating radio wave transmitters. Visionary. First theism.
The story science as practiced by humans only.
So to theory you have to be the present as a human.
Ignored as self evident relevant advice.
About theism. You already exist looking back pretending. As it is pretence claiming I know. Ignored as self relevant human advice.
Just because the practice superior thinking is group imposed for group purpose.
In the past the human theist scientist used a spiritual defence. To claim I am superior by the status told. I theoried as God told me the advice in science of how and why.
You therefore are not allowed to argue. Is the exact same mentality still used today.
A human conscious warning. Hypocrites and self idolisers. Humans.
Hypocrites as they explain why they believe they are advised when it is only theories in fact just stories of personal beliefs.
Saying the planet advised me is the hypocrite themself. Same God ancient theist. O earth sciences.
Which led to modern day theist stating it was not intelligent to preach falsified human science methods. As if you by thinking speaking invented the presence of all life.
Yet the gods in theory had been human applied science methods in theism. The history of theism was flawed. As humans are flawed yet egotism denies it is flawed.
The human warning in science was about the human themself.
So the consensus decided no man is God. The consensus said never give God a name again. O earth function. Don't thesis about dead things of the past theism itself and don't look back as a science theist relating reactions.
Claiming the medium told me. Being the gas status heavens.
As we live owning the gift of life presence of self human and to honour your human life and parents only. Was a teaching for human survival versus theism.
Which you 100 per cent ignore as your own human advice.
A human is first a human.
A theist is just a storyteller who uses sophist words to cunningly contrive by their presence and stories about our life's destruction. By not first honouring self presence.
Instead all theories involve non bodily healthy whole human presence.
The warning to everyone.
We are not your theories we are present whole and self owned.
Was the scientific analogy of the scientific human psyche.
McBell
Unbound
You notice he is avoiding answering your direct questions in favour of an attempted recruitment?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, countries and people are needlessly spending money and pose to do research on creation and evolution when OT and Quran explain it so well. Students are being taught rubbish. We need an overhaul. As for diseases and disasters, what is better than praying to the All-Mighty? Vaccines are vile, they make people impotent? Don't you agree?
Last edited:
In #11 gave you a link to the judgment in the Dover case (>here's that link again<), where "irreducible complexity" was argued and refuted by scientific evidence, some of which is summarized in that judgment.
If you'd like more detail, you'll find the transcript of Behe's evidence in favor of "irreducible complexity" and his consequent cross-examination >here< (starting at Day 10). You can also read the evidence for the plaintiffs there, and understand in detail the evidence for exaptation,
This is not "propaganda". This is the testimony of the leading proponent of "irreducible complexity" and will allow you to understand how and why it failed, and why the findings of the judge in that case were evidence-based exactly as they should be.
I say with respect that if you don't read and understand it, you'll have no genuine basis for any opinion that it's wrong, or unrefuted, or unexplained.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yeah, countries and people are needlessly spending money and pose to do research on creation and evolution when OT and Quran explain it so well. Students are being taught rubbish. We need an overhaul. As for diseases and disasters, what is better than praying to the All-Mighty? Vaccines are vile, they make people impotent? Don't you agree?
So why is that relevant to the post I made?