How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[SkepticThinker]

Emotions and feelings are useful epistemic tools for me.

This is an admission of irrationality.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

I was reading last week that not only is the universe becoming increasingly complex, that some scientists are discussing a new law of nature to explain it. I've seen this in a number of different articles, one of which spoke of applying "evolution" to everything in the universe, not just life. IOW things like change in order to adapt and becoming increasingly complex would apply to everything in the universe.

Scientists propose 'missing' law for the evolution of everything in the universe

The "law of increasing functional information" says that complex systems in nature evolve to become more complex.

www.space.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Emotions and feelings are useful epistemic tools for me.

It depends on what you mean. Emotions contribute to learning and drive us to act. But if you think they are a reliable source for determining what is true, think again.

Alice gets promoted at work, and she feels incredibly happy and confident. Alice's euphoria from her promotion makes her believe that everything is going well in her life. She thinks that she has excellent relationships, a bright future, and that nothing can go wrong. Her emotions paint a rosy picture, leading her to overlook potential problems or areas that need improvement.

Bob, on the other hand, has had a rough day and feels down and Bob's bad day makes him believe that his entire life is in shambles. He feels like he’s failing at work, his relationships are strained, and his future looks bleak. His emotions cloud his judgment, making him see everything through a negative lens, even though objectively, his situation might not be as dire.

Do you see how in both those cases, their perceptions of reality are working to actually filter it so that they don't see things as they objectively are.

 

[Valjean]

Emotions and feelings are individual and subjective. They're different for each individual. People have been relying on them for thousands of years, without arriving at any consistent, or testable conclusions. They are unreliable epistemic tools.

A conclusion arrived at emotionally is an irrational conclusion. Rational involves logical assessment of actual, objective evidence.

 

[The Hammer]

Emotions and feelings are individual and subjective. They're different for each individual. People have been relying on them for thousands of years, without arriving at any consistent, or testable conclusions. They are unreliable epistemic tools.

A conclusion arrived at emotionally is an irrational conclusion. Rational involves logical assessment of actual, objective evidence.

Humans are an irrational species and no matter how much rational thinking we think we do. We will always be emotional irrational creatures. And this is ok.

 

[Valjean]

Humans are an irrational species and no matter how much rational thinking we think we do. We will always be emotional irrational creatures. And this is ok.

OK. So stop making irrational ontologic claims and criticizing those of us who suffer from the unnatural malady of rational thought and logic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some time ago I used to read books similar to many of the posts here, authors abstractly talking about God or gods. I would listen to sermons by preachers, some of them very moving. But I still didn't believe in God. I listened to some preachers anyway. Finally, finally, one day I prayed for faith and asked God if He was there to give me faith. He did. I didn't see Him, but events showed me He heard me. There is no doubt in my mind about the series of events, or "evidences" showing me God heard my prayer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some time ago I used to read books similar to many of the posts here, authors abstractly talking about God or gods. I would listen to sermons by preachers, some of them very moving. But I still didn't believe in God. I listened to some preachers anyway. Finally, finally, one day I prayed for faith and asked God if He was there to give me faith. He did. I didn't see Him, but events showed me He heard me. There is no doubt in my mind about the series of events, or "evidences" showing me God heard my prayer.

Well there is your problem. You should have doubts. You should realize that believers from completely different religions will have had the same experiences as you have had. You cannot all be right but you can all be wrong. To be reasonable you would need to find a way to test your beliefs.

 

[gnostic]

Emotions and feelings are useful epistemic tools for me.

In Natural Sciences - eg physics, chemistry, Life sciences (eg biology), Earth sciences & astronomy - hence the studies of nature. So
you are looking at different parts of nature, learning to WHAT these parts are, and HOW they work.

Plus, with physics and chemistry, these are far more fundamental that overlap with other areas of natural sciences.

For instances, physics can be used in the other 4 areas of natural sciences - in chemistry, biology, Earth sciences & astronomy, that there are numbers of different fields developed with physics underpinning these respective science, fields like biophysics, geophysics, astrophysics and more in chemistry side - particle physics that explain some more smaller than protons & neutrons (eg quarks), nuclear physics that explain radio decays of unstable isotopes of elements, etc.

Social Sciences differed from Natural Sciences, as Social Sciences are studies of human behaviours (eg psychology, psychiatry, behavioural sciences, etc), studies of human cultures and their social interactions in groups, like societies or communities (eg sociology, anthropology, archaeology, human geography, linguistics, political sciences, etc), and studies of human actions and endeavours to improve human societies ( eg political sciences, demographics, economics, legal systems, ethics, etc).

In these types of sciences, emotions & feelings are of little use, as they can hinder works, because emotions often create biases.

There are uses for emotions and feelings, like in academic but non-scientific studies, collectively known as Humanities, that include several studies involving creativity of human development, like arts (drawing, painting, sculpture), architecture, literature (eg fiction, poetry, etc), performing arts (music, acting, plays, drama, comedy, etc), crafts (making things with hands, eg pottery, woodwork, etc).

Emotions & feelings provide inspiration for these types of studies…particularly in arts, literature & music.

There are places for emotions and feelings, but certainly not in Natural Sciences.

 

[gnostic]

Emotions and feelings are useful epistemic tools for me.

In Natural Sciences - eg physics, chemistry, Life sciences (eg biology), Earth sciences & astronomy - hence the studies of nature. So
you are looking at different parts of nature, learning to WHAT these parts are, and HOW they work.

Plus, with physics and chemistry, these are far more fundamental that overlap with other areas of natural sciences.

For instances, physics can be used in the other 4 areas of natural sciences - in chemistry, biology, Earth sciences & astronomy, that there are numbers of different fields developed with physics underpinning these respective science, fields like biophysics, geophysics, astrophysics and more in chemistry side - particle physics that explain some more smaller than protons & neutrons (eg quarks), nuclear physics that explain radio decays of unstable isotopes of elements, etc.

Social Sciences differed from Natural Sciences, as Social Sciences are studies of human behaviours (eg psychology, psychiatry, behavioural sciences, etc), studies of human cultures and their social interactions in groups, like societies or communities (eg sociology, anthropology, archaeology, human geography, linguistics, political sciences, etc), and studies of human actions and endeavours to improve human societies ( eg political sciences, demographics, economics, legal systems, ethics, etc).

In these types of sciences, emotions & feelings are of little use, as they can hinder works, because emotions often create biases.

There are uses for emotions and feelings, like in academic but non-scientific studies, collectively known as Humanities, that include several studies involving creativity of human development, like arts (drawing, painting, sculpture), architecture, literature (eg fiction, poetry, etc), performing arts (music, acting, plays, drama, comedy, etc), crafts (making things with hands, eg pottery, woodwork, etc).

Emotions & feelings provide inspiration for these types of studies…particularly in arts, literature & music.

There are places for emotions and feelings, but certainly not place for Natural Sciences…as Natural Sciences are not the studies of human emotions.

 

[Audie]

In Natural Sciences - eg physics, chemistry, Life sciences (eg biology), Earth sciences & astronomy - hence the studies of nature. So
you are looking at different parts of nature, learning to WHAT these parts are, and HOW they work.

Plus, with physics and chemistry, these are far more fundamental that overlap with other areas of natural sciences.

For instances, physics can be used in the other 4 areas of natural sciences - in chemistry, biology, Earth sciences & astronomy, that there are numbers of different fields developed with physics underpinning these respective science, fields like biophysics, geophysics, astrophysics and more in chemistry side - particle physics that explain some more smaller than protons & neutrons (eg quarks), nuclear physics that explain radio decays of unstable isotopes of elements, etc.

Social Sciences differed from Natural Sciences, as Social Sciences are studies of human behaviours (eg psychology, psychiatry, behavioural sciences, etc), studies of human cultures and their social interactions in groups, like societies or communities (eg sociology, anthropology, archaeology, human geography, linguistics, political sciences, etc), and studies of human actions and endeavours to improve human societies ( eg political sciences, demographics, economics, legal systems, ethics, etc).

In these types of sciences, emotions & feelings are of little use, as they can hinder works, because emotions often create biases.

There are uses for emotions and feelings, like in academic but non-scientific studies, collectively known as Humanities, that include several studies involving creativity of human development, like arts (drawing, painting, sculpture), architecture, literature (eg fiction, poetry, etc), performing arts (music, acting, plays, drama, comedy, etc), crafts (making things with hands, eg pottery, woodwork, etc).

Emotions & feelings provide inspiration for these types of studies…particularly in arts, literature & music.

There are places for emotions and feelings, but certainly not place for Natural Sciences…as Natural Sciences are not the studies of human emotions.

We are taught the great importance
of self control.

Among other things, emotions provide incrntive, strength
to do what is right and good.

Letting emotions take over and make decisions is the
height of foolishness. It's nothing but self indulgence.

 

[gnostic]

Some time ago I used to read books similar to many of the posts here, authors abstractly talking about God or gods. I would listen to sermons by preachers, some of them very moving. But I still didn't believe in God. I listened to some preachers anyway. Finally, finally, one day I prayed for faith and asked God if He was there to give me faith. He did. I didn't see Him, but events showed me He heard me. There is no doubt in my mind about the series of events, or "evidences" showing me God heard my prayer.

Good for you that - you found God and your religion.

But as this debate regards to Evolution being accepted or not accepted, the questions would be - whether nature of life can be more complex, through natural processes or not, eg Natural Selection or Genetic Drift or Mutations, etc…without the needs for supernatural “divine intervention”?

Over time - time as in generations, not years - some traits that are adaptable in the changed environment, will become more pronounced, and such traits will most reproduce successfully, thereby either sustaining stable populations or increasing population growths. Those that have the traits, will decrease the population growth, that might endanger the species.

There are nothing “supernatural“ about the theory of Evolution, as it all involved biology and genetic variations.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good for you that - you found God and your religion.

But as this debate regards to Evolution being accepted or not accepted, the questions would be - whether nature of life can be more complex, through natural processes or not, eg Natural Selection or Genetic Drift or Mutations, etc…without the needs for supernatural “divine intervention”?

Over time - time as in generations, not years - some traits that are adaptable in the changed environment, will become more pronounced, and such traits will most reproduce successfully, thereby either sustaining stable populations or increasing population growths. Those that have the traits, will decrease the population growth, that might endanger the species.

There are nothing “supernatural“ about the theory of Evolution, as it all involved biology and genetic variations.

the problem I have found with the theory of evolution, even though some say it's not a theory but rather it's the truth -- is really that although yes, the sizes of beaks can change due to genetic circumstances and yes, produce new species to an extent, the participants (I know language can be a pitfall) are still birds. Not humans. And if someone wants to tell me that birds and humans diverged from some common denominator a long time ago, my response would be -- probably -- hasta la vista.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good for you that - you found God and your religion.

But as this debate regards to Evolution being accepted or not accepted, the questions would be - whether nature of life can be more complex, through natural processes or not, eg Natural Selection or Genetic Drift or Mutations, etc…without the needs for supernatural “divine intervention”?

Over time - time as in generations, not years - some traits that are adaptable in the changed environment, will become more pronounced, and such traits will most reproduce successfully, thereby either sustaining stable populations or increasing population growths. Those that have the traits, will decrease the population growth, that might endanger the species.

There are nothing “supernatural“ about the theory of Evolution, as it all involved biology and genetic variations.

Actually, God found me and I responded. I asked, He answered. You know it's almost like circumstantial evidence. Too much happening that confirmed the idea that God was answering my prayer and kept at it. To this day.

 

[ppp]

the problem I have found with the theory of evolution, even though some say it's not a theory but rather it's the truth -- is really that although yes, the sizes of beaks can change due to genetic circumstances and yes, produce new species to an extent, the participants (I know language can be a pitfall) are still birds. Not humans.

Evolution does not predict that bird will become humans. The problem you have found is not with evolution, but with what you falsely imagine evolution to be.

 

[osgart]

We are taught the great importance
of self control.

Among other things, emotions provide incrntive, strength
to do what is right and good.

Letting emotions take over and make decisions is the
height of foolishness. It's nothing but self indulgence.

I would say the mind is where emotions are handled. How actuality is understood, perceived, and comprehended is where emotions are managed. Objectivity is a virtue as I understand it.

Emotions can go awry and people that are impulsive are ruled by their emotions without filtering them through a healthy understanding of their own perceptions as compared to actuality. It's easy to be fooled without objectivity.

Fantasy, and imagination are a place where people explore their inner emotional world. I guess that's why movies, and religion are so popular.

 

[McBell]

Evolution does not predict that bird will become humans. The problem you have found is not with evolution, but with what you falsely imagine evolution to be.

I find it utterly amazing how many people think evolution works like in Pokemon.

Even more mind boggling is that they refuse to accept that it doesn't, even after it is explained to them multiple times.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Evolution does not predict that bird will become humans. The problem you have found is not with evolution, but with what you falsely imagine evolution to be.

He is corrected over, and over, and over about his misrepresentation of evolution. Nothing changes. It is a case of willful ignorance.

 

[ppp]

He is corrected over, and over, and over about his misrepresentation of evolution. Nothing changes. It is a case of willful ignorance.

Bleh. That figures.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the problem I have found with the theory of evolution, even though some say it's not a theory but rather it's the truth -- is really that although yes, the sizes of beaks can change due to genetic circumstances and yes, produce new species to an extent, the participants (I know language can be a pitfall) are still birds.

Ow, goody. Back to the same mistake that's been corrected a billion times over the past several years.
Here's a post from june 2021 where I correct this exact mistake of yours:

More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

I like bananas, too. One thing in favor of gorillas -- as I understand it, they are not big meat eaters. So they don't raise cattle which is apparently adding to ruin the earth. (Oh, well. The Bible says God will ruin those who ruin the earth -- that's in Revelation, but of course, you probably...

www.religiousforums.com

When will you ever learn?
Why do you insist on being wrong?