Evidence Macroevolution Does Not Exist

[Kirran]

I don't think there is any one simple cause and effect, each country is different, but again- government running something is often a good way to kill it. The founding fathers meant separation of church and state to protect religion from government as well as vice versa..

But we got off topic a little, I'm thinking evolution is probably taught similarly in both countries? so that would be something of a wash...

One factor on a more personal level I think is urbanization, ratio of urban to rural. For me moving from the former to the latter made me think much more about the nature of nature so to speak.
It's a little difficult to marvel at creation in a concrete jungle.

Actually I think evolution is taught much better here. There's no entertainment if creationism in mainstream education.

As for urbanisation - the UK is less urbanised than the USA.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually I think evolution is taught much better here. There's no entertainment if creationism in mainstream education.

As for urbanisation - the UK is less urbanised than the USA.

The UK has 80% living in urban areas. America has 81%. There is no significant difference.



BTW@Guy Threepwood you never responded to my last post.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I'm saying it's not inevitable at all, without a blueprint.

As above, utilizing randomization and selecting for fitness function is a very elegant way to arrive at a design goal. I've used the same to determined the most efficient way to drive a car with specific parameters around specific courses, try a vast number of random teaks and keep selecting the fastest time. The interesting thing is that to reproduce the results, the most efficient way is the same as finding it in the first place- simply run the particular seeding of random numbers that produced the desired result. An alien investigating the code would see nothing but the appearance of random changes producing very 'un random' looking results. The result was both the result of random changes and very specific design at the same time.

Those are very poor analogies. Do you actually crash your car, killing yourself each time you test a driving method?

Do your other experiments have a significant chance of giving you cancer? Cancer is, after all, entirely a product of the exact same mechanism by which evolution occurs, and it shows its vast capacity for error. Cancer is also a billion times more common than adaptive mutation.

The real problem here, though, isn't the numbers, the question-begging (though that is a problem), or even the taking of Occam's Razor out back and shooting it. The real problem is that the designer you're imagining is a freakin' psychopath, literally killing and maiming sentient creatures left and right in order to arrive at... something or other that we can't possibly fathom. Creationism is one of those things that people think they want to believe because it would ostensibly give them comfort, but if you actually examine it in any detail the result is precisely the opposite.

So, no evidence whatsoever of a blueprint, plus an utterly untestable hypothesis that there is a blueprint, which only leads to some very squicky places. Not seeing the appeal here. I guess some folks just need to feel that there's somebody in charge, even if it means being ruled by a Dark Lord of the Sith. Fortunately, there's no intellectually honest reason to adopt the blueprint hypothesis, so we don't have to investigate questions such as why God thought giving my grandfather colon cancer was acceptable collateral damage for his grand plan of... playing in the sandbox.

 

[Kirran]

The UK has 80% living in urban areas. America has 81%. There is no significant difference.

Fair enough. It is pretty marginal. But it does take credence away for Guy's idea.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Fair enough. It is pretty marginal. But it does take credence away for Guy's idea.

well yeah obviously. I don't disagree with your point.

 

[viole]

We are the only means we know of, by which the universe is literally able ponder itself, be aware of it's own existence.

We mostly like chocolate. Do you think the Universe is now enabled to appreciate chocolate too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kirran]

We're a pretty poor means by which the universe might ponder itself. Our senses are woefully inaccurate. Or at least, are woefully out-of-sync with what science tells us to be the case. Seeing as science is done through the senses, in effect, the whole thing is thrown into jeopardy.

 

[outhouse]

Seeing as science is done through the senses, in effect, the whole thing is thrown into jeopardy.

How so?

How can observing and reporting on facts throw anything into jeopardy

 

[Kirran]

How so?

How can observing and reporting on facts throw anything into jeopardy

I just mean as a measure by which to explore that which is ultimately real.

I'm not against it, I am a scientist myself.