Evolution's impossible flaw

[Revoltingest]

And don't give me a bunch of crap about stochastic systems.....

OK, I won't.

 

[ID_Neon]

Please don't go there.....the rules, you know.
I don't want to see you banned.

I just want people to use critical thinking for ONCE. And stop directing me to things like (5 reasons you're wrong).

Seriously can't one person here make a logical argument how evolution works when we observe a nature in harmony?

That's all I want. Very easy question!

 

[ID_Neon]

The only conclusion one can make from thus thread so far is that EVOLUTIONISTS can't make a logical argument as to how evolution can function in the observed world.

 

[Skwim]

This isn't going to last long. :foot:

ID_Neon isn't going to last long. But he did bring a bit of amusement to an otherwise quiet Saturday.

Take care ID,

and thanks.

 

[Photonic]

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

 

[Father Heathen]

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Seriously, there are already around four or so currently active threads on the subject, and it gets rather tiresome refuting the exact same nonsensical arguments over and over ad nauseum.

 

[Photonic]

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Seriously, there are already around four or so currently active threads on the subject, and it gets rather tiresome refuting the exact same nonsensical arguments over and over ad nauseum.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Revoltingest]

Any bets on when the Neon bulb will go out?
I'll bet 10 frubals on 10 pm tonite.

(And yes, I know I'm being all catty.)

 

[Noaidi]

Seriously can't one person here make a logical argument how evolution works when we observe a nature in harmony?

That's all I want. Very easy question!

Can you define "nature in harmony"?

 

[ID_Neon]

Can you define "nature in harmony"?

The absence of evidence of an unrestrained competition between adaptive species.

The fact so many species are cooperative and all species rely upon the system as a whole

 

[Meow Mix]

The real world is not a nature at war, but in perfect harmony. And here evolutionary theory falls apart.

Adaptation necessarily requires some competition, but as we see with man's invention competition leads to Genocide, Nuclear weapons, and total war.

A world at war in nature would be incredibly hostile. Fighting to be the fittest, dogs would run wild in packs and eat men and kill animals other than themselves at all times.

Why would that be the case? Dogs survive and reproduce just fine without going wild and needlessly attacking everything. It takes energy, time, and risk to run amock -- there's no advantage to doing so.

Any Predator would kill for the sake of killing, preventing another predator from advancing.

There's no reason to do that. Most predators have different niches to begin with. How do you propose evolutionary mechanisms could evolve that sort of behavior? If genes are being replicated just fine without ultra-aggressive (and expensive, and risky) behavior, then why would such a behavior be more likely to reproduce in future generations than less risky behavior?

I think you have a misconception about evolution. You seem to have a notion of it like a sentient force that "knows" what's "most rational" for organisms to behave like and that it can gear them towards that behavior. That simply isn't the way that it works. If genes are being replicated without problem then it's unlikely drastic aggressive behavior would be beneficial enough for the alleles that encourage that behavior to increase their frequency in the gene pool.

In fact, for the reasons I've already explained (increase biological cost, increased risk, decreased altruism) it's more likely that the traits you're arguing for would be less successful.

Prey would be better guarded. Gazelle would be armored, elephants would raid the camps of lions and smash them to death. Herds would rampage the plain trampling all under foot.

Trees would ooze poison.

Every plant would have thorns.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of biological cost. It takes resources to build biological structures. Except for extreme circumstances (such as when species are artificially introduced into new ecosystems) predation doesn't upset the gene flow of prey populations enough for it to be evolutionary advantageous for such structures to evolve. Even assuming the right set of mutations or gene flows occurred it may well be less advantageous in terms of biological cost to have such things than it does to simply get by without them.

Remember, evolution isn't conscious. Something might sound like a rational idea, but genes don't know that. As long as genes are replicating without too much interruption, it can actually be less likely for genes that "sound good on paper" to dominate the gene pool if their biological cost doesn't outweigh their benefit. Make sense?

Disease would spread uncontrollably.

Actually, diseases and parasites are one of the primary engines behind evolutionary processes. You speak of a "war in nature" -- that's actually a fairly apt description of the evolutionary struggles between parasites and hosts. Again, however, biological cost is a factor.

There is absolutely no reason for the emmense cooperation we see in the natural world were evolution true.

The natural world is incredibly cooperative and we see this expressed in the food web, the web is fragile, yet every creature plays it's part for the WHOLE.

Actually there are very good reasons for the amount of "cooperation" we see in nature. In terms of altruism, the advantages of social and eusocial behavior should be obvious enough for me not to list them here, unless you'd like further clarification.

In terms of ecological food webs, there's a good reason for them to exist the way they do as well. Recall biological cost: it costs a lot more to compete with different organisms (and thus much different genes) than it does to simply tap into a different energy source.

This is the concept of ecological niches. As an analogy, why would everyone in town try to get a job at the grocery store at once and spend all the effort and energy competing when people can just get different jobs that don't compete with all those other people?

--------

Hopefully I've answered some of your questions. You complained that not many people were responding seriously to you -- I want to reiterate what some other people have said: this is because this is an old argument that's been done many times before, and a lot of people are simply tired of it. These same sorts of misconceptions come up all the time and it gets "old hat," so to say.

I'm willing to engage with you if you won't mind toning down the personal attacks (please review the rules: calling people stupid or idiots is a quick way to get banned from the forum). There's nothing wrong with attacking ideas, but making personal comments about others isn't tolerated.

Other than that, welcome to RF. I hope you review the rules so that you can stay on board to contribute to this excellent community!

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm glad you arrived....such patience & clarity.

 

[Sunstone]

Evolution has a basic premise that is "progressive". It is not necessarily progressive in adaptation, or competition, or complexity, but it is progressive in one of these senses. Each of these have serious flaws but the principle flaw is the sense of progress. This simply is not evident in Nature, it also betray's man's mind in constructing evolutionary theory. Because a man may believe in progress, and specifically goes to war for that belief. So let's observe nature and look for conflict.

Nature at War, is a catchy phrase. We find in the imaginary world, nature is always at war. In fantasy we construct elves, spirits, treeants, evil and good manifested in characture.

In science fiction we find nature incredibly hostile to man, Avatar comes to mind. Mankind in his present mind is at war with nature, and nature can fight back. Although more biologically less spiritually.

Even in scientific worlds we describe the natural world as warlike. Dinosaurs fought, Ice Afe creatures were built for this fantasy war.

But in the end it was only fantasy.

The real world is not a nature at war, but in perfect harmony. And here evolutionary theory falls apart.

Adaptation necessarily requires some competition, but as we see with man's invention competition leads to Genocide, Nuclear weapons, and total war.

A world at war in nature would be incredibly hostile. Fighting to be the fittest, dogs would run wild in packs and eat men and kill animals other than themselves at all times.

Any Predator would kill for the sake of killing, preventing another predator from advancing.

Prey would be better guarded. Gazelle would be armored, elephants would raid the camps of lions and smash them to death. Herds would rampage the plain trampling all under foot.

Trees would ooze poison.

Every plant would have thorns.

Disease would spread uncontrollably.

There is absolutely no reason for the emmense cooperation we see in the natural world were evolution true.

The natural world is incredibly cooperative and we see this expressed in the food web, the web is fragile, yet every creature plays it's part for the WHOLE.

Every creature, except man.

Mankind runs around and plays it's part for its self.

These illogical operations can suggest only one thing. And it is the correct observation by thousands of generations.

Mankind is not of nature; is not a creature like any other in the natural world. Mankin alone progresses. And even that is an illusory progress.

But mankind can choose to take everything for himself. Where as every other creature must work as a part of a complete machine.

And most of all, nature does not tho it should, wipe out humanity in a torrent of angry animals, plants, and microbes.

Some of this would be a brilliant observation if it were not that all of it is pure bunk.

 

[Viker]

Evolution has a basic premise that is "progressive". It is not necessarily progressive in adaptation, or competition, or complexity, but it is progressive in one of these senses. Each of these have serious flaws but the principle flaw is the sense of progress. This simply is not evident in Nature, it also betray's man's mind in constructing evolutionary theory. Because a man may believe in progress, and specifically goes to war for that belief. So let's observe nature and look for conflict.

Nature at War, is a catchy phrase. We find in the imaginary world, nature is always at war. In fantasy we construct elves, spirits, treeants, evil and good manifested in characture.

In science fiction we find nature incredibly hostile to man, Avatar comes to mind. Mankind in his present mind is at war with nature, and nature can fight back. Although more biologically less spiritually.

Even in scientific worlds we describe the natural world as warlike. Dinosaurs fought, Ice Afe creatures were built for this fantasy war.

But in the end it was only fantasy.

The real world is not a nature at war, but in perfect harmony. And here evolutionary theory falls apart.

Adaptation necessarily requires some competition, but as we see with man's invention competition leads to Genocide, Nuclear weapons, and total war.

A world at war in nature would be incredibly hostile. Fighting to be the fittest, dogs would run wild in packs and eat men and kill animals other than themselves at all times.

Any Predator would kill for the sake of killing, preventing another predator from advancing.

Prey would be better guarded. Gazelle would be armored, elephants would raid the camps of lions and smash them to death. Herds would rampage the plain trampling all under foot.

Trees would ooze poison.

Every plant would have thorns.

Disease would spread uncontrollably.

There is absolutely no reason for the emmense cooperation we see in the natural world were evolution true.

The natural world is incredibly cooperative and we see this expressed in the food web, the web is fragile, yet every creature plays it's part for the WHOLE.

Every creature, except man.

Mankind runs around and plays it's part for its self.

These illogical operations can suggest only one thing. And it is the correct observation by thousands of generations.

Mankind is not of nature; is not a creature like any other in the natural world. Mankin alone progresses. And even that is an illusory progress.

But mankind can choose to take everything for himself. Where as every other creature must work as a part of a complete machine.

And most of all, nature does not tho it should, wipe out humanity in a torrent of angry animals, plants, and microbes.

Just like I thought. You don't know evolution.

 

[not nom]

The absence of evidence of an unrestrained competition between adaptive species.

The fact so many species are cooperative and all species rely upon the system as a whole

you mean like cows eating grass, killing it utterly dead?!

 

[Alceste]

I just want people to use critical thinking for ONCE. And stop directing me to things like (5 reasons you're wrong).

Seriously can't one person here make a logical argument how evolution works when we observe a nature in harmony?

That's all I want. Very easy question!

 

[Alceste]

Remember, evolution isn't conscious. Something might sound like a rational idea, but genes don't know that. As long as genes are replicating without too much interruption, it can actually be less likely for genes that "sound good on paper" to dominate the gene pool if their biological cost doesn't outweigh their benefit. Make sense?

Makes sense to me. :yes:

To take the argument "if evolution is true, why is everything still so vulnerable?" to it's logical conclusion, every organism on earth should be invincible.

You can immediately see why that would cause problems as far as a functioning biosphere is concerned. Vulnerability and death are necessary to maintain life. What good is an invincible gazelle to an invincible lion?

 

[outhouse]

Back to biology class, son.

well said.

 

[painted wolf]

Evolution has a basic premise that is "progressive". It is not necessarily progressive in adaptation, or competition, or complexity, but it is progressive in one of these senses. Each of these have serious flaws but the principle flaw is the sense of progress. This simply is not evident in Nature, it also betray's man's mind in constructing evolutionary theory. Because a man may believe in progress, and specifically goes to war for that belief. So let's observe nature and look for conflict.

Nature at War, is a catchy phrase. We find in the imaginary world, nature is always at war. In fantasy we construct elves, spirits, treeants, evil and good manifested in characture.

In science fiction we find nature incredibly hostile to man, Avatar comes to mind. Mankind in his present mind is at war with nature, and nature can fight back. Although more biologically less spiritually.

Even in scientific worlds we describe the natural world as warlike. Dinosaurs fought, Ice Afe creatures were built for this fantasy war.

But in the end it was only fantasy.

The real world is not a nature at war, but in perfect harmony. And here evolutionary theory falls apart.

Adaptation necessarily requires some competition, but as we see with man's invention competition leads to Genocide, Nuclear weapons, and total war.

A world at war in nature would be incredibly hostile. Fighting to be the fittest, dogs would run wild in packs and eat men and kill animals other than themselves at all times.

Any Predator would kill for the sake of killing, preventing another predator from advancing.

Yeah... a lot of them do just that. They especially love killing the infants of other predators. Not to eat them.. just to kill them.

Prey would be better guarded. Gazelle would be armored, elephants would raid the camps of lions and smash them to death. Herds would rampage the plain trampling all under foot.

Yeah... all these things happen.

Trees would ooze poison.

Many of them do...so three for three! Let's keep going.

Every plant would have thorns.

Why? Poison works just as good.

Disease would spread uncontrollably.

Why? That would kill all of the hosts and then what would the disease do?

There is absolutely no reason for the emmense cooperation we see in the natural world were evolution true.

Of course there is herbivores that cooperate have better chances against predators just as a quick example.

The natural world is incredibly cooperative and we see this expressed in the food web, the web is fragile, yet every creature plays it's part for the WHOLE.

yeah... right. That's why so many species go extinct. That's why lions and hyenas are driving the cheetah extinct right now.

Every creature, except man.

Mankind runs around and plays it's part for its self.

These illogical operations can suggest only one thing. And it is the correct observation by thousands of generations.

Mankind is not of nature; is not a creature like any other in the natural world. Mankin alone progresses. And even that is an illusory progress.

But mankind can choose to take everything for himself. Where as every other creature must work as a part of a complete machine.

And most of all, nature does not tho it should, wipe out humanity in a torrent of angry animals, plants, and microbes.

wow... just wow.

wa:do