outhouse
Atheistically
That is actually well put. We are ONLY talking about refusal of knowledge here. There is no debate, and most of those who refuse this knowledge don't know the first thing about biology
-
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!
Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne
- Thread starter *blank*
- Start date
That is actually well put. We are ONLY talking about refusal of knowledge here. There is no debate, and most of those who refuse this knowledge don't know the first thing about biology
Unification
Well-Known Member
Indeed, without worrying what others think or trying to please others... or the fear of being cast into "eternal unfashionable intelligence damnation."
Unification
Well-Known Member
If there's no debate, why debate?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That's the gist of how evolution was taught to me, that it is the intellectually superior, academically approved belief, and only idiots scrutinize the science itself
exactly how Hoyle and other atheists described static universe models v. the 'religious pseudoscience' of Leamitre's primeval atom
exactly as some viewed classical physics v Plancks 'mysterious unpredictable forces'
outhouse
Atheistically
Science studies the available evidences. But a scientific fact can only be based on undeniable full proof(s).
Until new evidence points to a better theory.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Exactly, and many do not understand that this is how the term is used. And like all such theories, they all should be viewed as "works in progress", iow, nothing is so sacred that it can't be challenged.
Ultimatum
Classical Liberal
No, a theory is a general, vague idea. A scientific theory is made up of facts.
Evolution will never become a scientific "fact" nor "law" in the strictest senses of the word.
All evolution theory is present facts through a more narrow medium. I.e.:
[Natual selection]
[Common descent]
[Speciation]
This linguistic red herring can also be applied to the general theory of relativity.
Shad
Veteran Member
So your solution is to accept an assertion as a fact before getting to "work" in a wide ranging field that does not accept assertions as facts. Hilarious. One might as well saying "Before we start working on abiogenesis theories lets all accept the assertion that we were created by aliens"
Yes, but it is undertandable. That is what is is taught at school. Forces everywhere. Which is fine, because forces have an algorithmic power that is very useful if you become an engineer or something. You can do a lot with F = ma.
It might sound surprising but the concept of force tends to vanish in modern theoretical physics. And that includes the modern formulations of classical mechanics; for instance, Hamiltonian mechanics.
But in the case of gravity it is easy to see why. If you free fall towards the earth you will feel no force despite being under the influence of a strong gravitational field. It is not you, free falling, that is subject to a force, but the people on earth that are prevented to fall as well with you. They are the ones accelerating with 1 G towards you, despite watching TV in their living rooms. They feel a weight (acceleration and therefore force), not you.
So, in this respect, forces can be interpreted as the attempts of nature to put you back on the right track (e.g. falling down) when you deviate from it (because of the floor under your feet). In other words, gravity is not a force. Trying to fight it, causes forces.
Ciao
- viole
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Well, as far as I can see, I know more about Biology already than you probably every will, and yes religion is a human construct. Is there a point you want to make?Here is a word, I would like you to look up the definition and learn it before returning, BIOLOGY!
meanwhile all religions are a human construct
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Without human beings there would be no word to represent what the word planet represents to us.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
OK utterly pivotal point, and exactly the one I am making.
That very slight benefits can be given lots of time to reap rewards, is the exact intuitive assumption I and many believers made/make- But think this through in your ideal ape group scenario again
If the mutation equates to .0 0 0 0 0 1% more reproduction per generation
Then in the very next generation (in the small isolated stressed group in your ideal scenario) following this original 'slightly advantageous mutation'...
these apes must on average produce at least HALF a MILLION children EACH in this single generation before we can expect even an odds-on chance of a single extra individual to be born specifically because of this specific mutation in this specific individual- and hence for 'natural selection' , hence evolution, to have made any progress whatsoever.
natural selection cannot specifically select 'potentially' beneficial genes to be saved for a rainy day - to accumulate slight benefits later on
they may be passed on at random yes, but they are not selected to be distributed in the gene pool over any slightly deleterious mutations either- in fact since non beneficial vastly outnumber beneficial mutations, there is a far greater chance that potentially problematic mutations are stored to surface later.
Using rough but more realistic figures: Most Gorillas for example have 4 or 5 offspring, 2 of which usually die. So the advantage must be a whopping17% at least, in order for the mutation to have an odds on chance of successfully increasing it's distribution in that generation, and that's the best shot the mutation will ever have, before it is diluted in the gene pool
Making DNA without touching it? what are the odds that humans can write and distribute software without 'physically touching it?' Seems like the most obvious way to me
you think there were that many humans that lived during that period!? that's way wilder than even what JWs claim for ancient populations
108,000,000,000 is the estimate for the number of humans that have EVER lived
Nobody knows for sure how many lived then, other than the human population was tiny, a matter of thousands perhaps, and yes only 10,000 generations - to double the human brain and create awareness, it's phenomenal by any measure, certainly not 'simulatable' no!
Exactly, I can simulate orbits of solar systems just fine, through simple laws of classical physics, I can simulate aerodynamics involving far more complex math
but the workings of stars are another matter, because they require far more than simple laws of physics, a long list of deeper, highly specific instructions determining exactly how they operate, what heavier elements are produced- one's necessary for life.- by complete chance I suppose!
So no I don't believe in classical physics supporting supernovas
And likewise, I don't believe the simple laws of classical evolution are an adequate model for life on Earth.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Could you please take a grade school biology class before debating topics you obviously don't have a clue about?
Homo line of mammals have been in existence for millions of years. 150,000 generations based on average breeding age of 20 just for example. based on ONLY 3 millions
dust1n
Zindīq
Oh man... How to address this...
You know how humans share the majority of DNA sequencing in their bodies. Like, somewhere on the latitude of the overwhelming majority of their DNA? The same applies to gorillas. About 95% of the DNA between humans and gorillas is the same... So where as you'd be correct if there was only ever one Gorilla in existence, there in fact many gorillas. Given that MOST GORILLAS would have the same gene, or phenotype for a given thickness of fur, each time every conception of a gorilla occurs, the .000001% would apply to every new born gorilla with the same gene being passed down, until that particular gene mutates. Which is why, the entirety of gorillas in your average most produce half a million children AS A TOTAL GROUP, NOT EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER. So given that most gorillas have 2/3 viable children, the last known common human ancestor between gorillas and humans would be around 7 million years ago, meaning there was just roughly, 350,000 generations, and every generation almost all members of the entire population have 2/3 a generation.
Lets just saying you started with one male gorilla, and one female gorilla.
They have 2/3 children, they have 2/3 children each, they have 2/3 children each, they have 2/3 children each, for 34998 thousand more times... the gene is duplicated (and mated) with the slight potential for mutation every single copulation.
If you had a 20 sided die, and you wanted to roll a 7, you might be rolling the die for a bit before you actually hit 7. If you rolled one hundred die, your chances of getting 7 or better. If you roll one million 20 sided die, it seems very unlikely that you would never hit 7, or any given number in this formulation.
This is ignores that there may be multiple possible genetic improvements, so instead a gorilla only needing to get this one thing to improve, there are in fact, thousands of ways to improve. Some mutations are neither immediately beneficial or determinable, but maybe useful 3,000 generations later when the environment changes. Different genetic coding often creates the exact some protien, so sometimes you only need to get a 7, a 9, a 14, or a 20, in the dice scenario.
They can't. Humans write and distribute software by physically touching things. Just in case you weren't aware, your finger is pushing down keys on a keyboard, which is diverting the path of electrons through thousands of logic gates, which eventually activate the appropriate colors on a certain specific number of pixels, which are also just more electrons being shot out of screen into your eyeballs, where the nerves of your eye interpret the pattern of wavelengths to form an image in your mind...
When God is sitting down at his desk typing out the chain of every known DNA, and every known atom, I guess, does he have to manually type ACCCGGAGAGCGAGAAAGAAGCCCGAAAGCCGAGAAAAAGGCGCGCCCGAAGAAGCCGAA...?
Is that what I said? No. Firstly, it's an example, and things die before they reproduce, and even their reproduction is more or less in vain when a tsunami kills everyone anyways.
Secondly, the "humans" of 200,000 didn't have half the size of a brain.
Thirdly, awareness is not something that was created overnight. Speaking of it, you are aware that all the mammals you've ever met are to some extent aware of their environments and react to it, right?
Obviously supernova can't be simulated with classical physics... the question, you can't simulate it in your software. Is that cause to not believe that supernovas occur?
Also, there highly specific instructions determining, at least, the basic conceptions of heavier elements are produced...
The most important reactions in stellar nucleosynthesis:
- Hydrogen fusing:
- Helium burning:
- The triple-alpha process
- The alpha process
- Burning of heavier elements:
- Lithium burning: a process found most commonly in brown dwarfs
- Carbon-burning process
- Neon-burning process
- Oxygen-burning process
- Silicon-burning process
- Production of elements heavier than iron:
- Neutron capture:
- Proton capture:
- The Rp-process
- Photo-disintegration:
- The P-process
Also, various elements can be simulated:
Granted it takes even supercomputers some few months to run it.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
It is evolutionists who refuse to even consider the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. When we admit the fact that freedom is real, then it is readily apparent that organisms are chosen as a functional whole, in a reasoned and informed way, intelligent design / creation.
There is no scientific reasoning whatsoever why this hypothesis that freedom is real and relevant in the universe is rejected. It is because subjectivity, saying what is beautiful, good, and loving and such, works in a free way, that the fact that freedom is real is denied. The real target is subjectivity. To ideologically compete fact against opinion to the destruction of all opinion, and the fact that freedom is real is thrown out, in order to throw out subjectivity. Jerry Coyne denies free will, of human beings, is real. That is no coincedence. He denies freedom in the universe at large in respect to creation of organisms, and he denies freedom in the particluar case of human beings.
The models show that the algorithm of evolution random mutation + natural selection results in garbage. The power of randomness to produce garbage, arbitrarily changing any CATG, far, far, far outstrips the power of natural selection to shape the organisms into an ordered whole.
Last edited:
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
That organisms carry useless garbage around for 3000 generations, at which point it suddenly becomes useful, is not a working model. In the model that would mean the organisms become garbage, rather than that they carry garbage around.