Evolution is illogical and non sense

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

First of all, I don't think you know what "science" is.

Second of all...

You look different from your parents.

Artificial breeding programs exist.

Ligers and coywolves exist now.

Comments like that somebody doesn't know what science is, are empty rhetoric.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't see why evolution is so taboo to some religious people unless you take everything that is in your mythos as absolute literal fact, in which case you may be disappointed.

You can't see the extremist anti-religion, anti freedom, anti-subjectivity rhetoric of evolutionists?

 

[dust1n]

I am going to give you just one example from the two books I discussed. This will illustrate exactly what I have discussed. When specific evolution falls completely apart. These two books have 365 daily examples. One for each day. So with both books if you dare to get them. You can't read them and stay fooled any longer. There are many other ones even better. I just picked the one I read today.

Did you know the African Gazelle has a radiator in his nose? When chased by a lion, the African gazelle can reach speeds up to 50 mph. This raises the gazelle's body temperature. However, when scientist measured the temperature of the gazelle's brain after extreme exertion, they found the temperature to be remarkably low. Scientist were surprised to find out that the gazelle has its own totally unique blood cooling system.

Um, that isn't totally unique. Sheep have it, lions have it, and, hey, so did the Scimitar oryx before it went extinct. It really shouldn't be that surprising to you... every animal and most plants have methods of controlling the temperature of their body and various organs, in a number of ways.

See evolution can't and doesn't have the time nor brain to allow, before extinction, of animals for situations like this.

And what evidence do you have to support this notion?

You say I don't understand it. I say you are willfully blind. I asked for answers to my questions. I get none but as I said I would. I get told I don't understand it. But since you do so well then enlighten me and explain each step and give me ONE proven example and explain each step and how many steps for ONE evolved species. Gee, the rest of science can get real specific. Evolution as "scientific fact" can't! Why not? Because as Dr. Lewontin admits, It is fraud and just so stories and not honest true science.

Documented multiple times....

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Blogs

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.

This process, known as Hybrid Speciation, has been documented a number of times in different plants. But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species.

But just because we can't see all speciation events from start to finish doesn't mean we can't see species splitting. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find species in various stages of separation all over the globe. There would be ones that have just begun to split, showing reproductive isolation, and those that might still look like one species but haven't interbred for thousands of years. Indeed, that is exactly what we find.

The apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, Rhagoletis pomonella began the long journey of speciation.

As we would expect, other animals are much further along in the process - although we don't always realize it until we look at their genes.

Orcas (Orcinus orca), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They're big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn't be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more.

Now, geneticists have done what the behavioral researchers could not. They looked at how the whales breed. When they looked at the entire mitochondrial genome from 139 different whales throughout the globe, they found dramatic differences. These data suggested there are indeed at least three different species of killer whale. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the different species of orca have been separated for 150,000 to 700,000 years.

Your problem is you are emotionally invested in your atheism so you are willfully ignoring the obvious. I am highly educated and highly analytical with common sense and logic. I don't have enough faith to believe as you do!

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Matthew 23:12

When I look around, I look and I have no other option but to acknowledge a superior power intelligence far above what we have. That is common sense and logic.

I looked around, and decided there is a superior power intelligence. Sorry, bud, but I'm not actually sure you know what "logic" is. You didn't even present an argument.

The experience in all I see in the world validates that to me. You can't give me one example to prove otherwise. I keep asking and never get one. Why?

"Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position."

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dust1n]

Comments like that somebody doesn't know what science is, are empty rhetoric.

Why? Am I automatically qualified to speak upon Islam? I haven't read the Qu'ran at all, but I think God is a transgendered lesbian, according to Islam. Would telling me I don't know what I'm talking about be empty rhetoric?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sometimes I wonder if this area should even exist. It is so sad to see posts that rely on utter misrepresentation of evolution to attempt to challenge it. I feel a bit guilty.

 

[dust1n]

BTW you keep reading about the Fall, of mankind. That caused all imperfections. Not God's original Design etc.

I don't see anything in the fossil record that indicates that all imperfections derive from the fall of mankind. I actually don't see any evidence for that whatsoever. I think I'm getting the hang of this thing you call "common sense" and "logic."

 

[Kirran]

I have genuinely seen evolution occur in bacteria in the laboratory.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Newton came up with objects attracting on account of seeing an apple fall to the ground. People come up with creation theory on account of seeing the efficient and complex integrated wholes of organisms.

Common sense says that organisms are chosen to be the way they are.

You can see the whole evolution pursuit is wallowing in rejection of freedom and subjectivity, attracting atheists and social darwinists who like that sort of thing. Nobel prize winners included, standards are very very low in biology.

The scientists must come up with something that explains origins in terms of how things are chosen in the universe. And if they don't, you should just reject it as not good enough.

 

[Kirran]

Newton came up with objects attracting on account of seeing an apple fall to the ground. People come up with creation theory on account of seeing the efficient and complex integrated wholes of organisms.

Common sense says that organisms are chosen to be the way they are.

You can see the whole evolution pursuit is wallowing in rejection of freedom and subjectivity, attracting atheists and social darwinists who like that sort of thing. Nobel prize winners included, standards are very very low in biology.

The scientists must come up with something that explains origins in terms of how things are chosen in the universe. And if they don't, you should just reject it as not good enough.

MNS, I don't believe you're a biologist.

I, in fact, am a biologist. What you say here does not represent my experience in this field.

Scientific standards in biology are very rigorous. Nothing is accepted unless it can be verified. As far as the vast majority of those scientists who have studied biology and I are concerned, evolution is accepted, just as the germ theory of disease is accepted.

For both, there are simply mountains and mountains of proof, there continues to be no contradicting evidence, and discoveries in other scientific fields continue to fit in with the ideas presented.

 

[ttechsan]

I have replied on a separate thread. So you say I don't understand evolution. So go there and show me where I have missed understanding evolution!
You do realize that agenda trumps truth in so many cases. Politics, financial gain and stats etc are great examples of that. You give a mathematician what you want the end result to be and he can massage the numbers to get what you want any time you want. Our Government does this all the time. Science is not immune to agenda, greed, financial gain and peer pressure etc. Don't be so naive. Science is a pure as Driven over snow not snow itself.

 

[Ouroboros]

You do realize that agenda trumps truth in so many cases. Politics, financial gain and stats etc are great examples of that. You give a mathematician what you want the end result to be and he can massage the numbers to get what you want any time you want. Our Government does this all the time. Science is not immune to agenda, greed, financial gain and peer pressure etc. Don't be so naive. Science is a pure as Driven over snow not snow itself.

Prove it. Now it's up to you to prove that the theory of evolution is only a politically driven agenda.

 

[Sapiens]

Science is not immune to agenda, greed, financial gain and peer pressure, and religion is? How about child abuse, like religions? These are what are known as hominems and are off the topic.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You do realize that agenda trumps truth in so many cases. Politics, financial gain and stats etc are great examples of that. You give a mathematician what you want the end result to be and he can massage the numbers to get what you want any time you want. Our Government does this all the time. Science is not immune to agenda, greed, financial gain and peer pressure etc. Don't be so naive. Science is a pure as Driven over snow not snow itself.

Your delusions know no bounds. I sincerely pity you.

 

[Etritonakin]

Increasingly complex, sure. I think people stray away from higher order, because it suggests some sort of hierarchy amongst animals, when, in reality, there isn't. There isn't anything innately wonderful about being increasingly complex, or smart, or thoughtful, and evolutionarily speaking, it's really irrelevant to be increasingly complex if it doesn't serve reproduction.

Why are we limited to speaking evolutionarily?

There is something innately wonderful. Reproduction serves that. What is true concerning evolution serves that. Evolution -whether of or by design or otherwise -is just a small part of "life" which has led to appreciation and creation of wonders.

Evolution -whatever we find that it may be -is wonderful, but it is just the beginning.

 

[Kirran]

There is one particular species of worm, found in Africa, which survives only by colonising the eyes of children and eating them from the back forwards, leading them to painfully go blind.

Why would God design such an organism?

 

[Kirran]

Let's get some clarity in this discussion.

The theory if evolution lays out how organisms change over generations to better suit their environments. More accurately, evolution is the shift in allele frequencies over time. An allele is a version of a gene.

It is caused by the five forces of mutation, natural selection, non-random mating, migration and genetic drift.

A population's allele frequencies will remain constant (i.e. no evolution will occur) given the following assumptions: population size is infinite, all mating is random, no selection pressures are acting, mutation does not occur, there is no movement between populations. If any one or more of these assumptions is violated, as is always the case in nature, then evolution must occur.

What do you dispute here?

 

[ArtieE]

You can see the whole evolution pursuit is wallowing in rejection of freedom and subjectivity, attracting atheists and social darwinists who like that sort of thing.

And attracting 45% of Muslims in the US and other theists who also presumably like that sort of thing.

Do only Atheists believe in Evolution?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And attracting 45% of Muslims in the US and other theists who also presumably like that sort of thing.

Do only Atheists believe in Evolution?

All people are tempted to regard what is good and evil as fact including muslims. I saw 2 muslims on these forums who regarded what emotions people have as a factual issue, and 0 muslims who regarded it as a matter of opinion. No doubt they also regarded one material thing coming from another material thing as origins, instead of regarding how things are chosen to be as origins. I also met another muslim who was a social darwinist, who took natural selection theory as a way of life.

Anybody who says there is no religious problem in accepting evolution theory doesn't really understand how subjectivity works.

 

[LuisDantas]

Anybody who says there is no religious problem in accepting evolution theory doesn't really understand how subjectivity works.

Or, maybe, they just understand that there is no relation whatsoever between the one and the other?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Or, maybe, they just understand that there is no relation whatsoever between the one and the other?

It is not a coincedence that 1, you accept evolution theory, and 2, you don't understand how subjectivity works.

Anybody who cannot see the pattern of atheists and social darwinists associated to evolution theory is not good at looking at the evidence.