Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

If I may, that is likely because some believe strongly in the theory of evolution.

That raises the question of why merely believe when one can know. If one is not afraid to learn one can know how evolution occurred. One can know of the endless evidence for it. One can even know tests that could falsify it if it was wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If human evolution is such a magnificent process that supposedly took so many millions and millions of years... how is it that diseases based on human anatomy still exist? Isn't it supposed that after so much evolution there would no longer be human conditions like a simple seasonal flu?

The flu evolves also. Why is it do you think that there are new variations of flu shots required every year?

This is like asking why lions still exist if the antilope evolves to outrun the lion.
Or why the antilope still exists if the lion evolves to catch and eat the antilope.

Having said that, evolution doesn't require organisms to be "perfect" or "immortal" or "immune to any and all desease".
Organisms instead need to be merely resiliant enough to survive till breeding age and manage to reproduce.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Viruses have never stopped being viruses, even if they have adapted.

And humans never stopped being apes. And mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates.
Your point?

Humans (supposedly evolved) would have already self-generated a capacity to overcome the ancient diseases that still affect them

And they have. It's called immunity. The thing you seem oblivious to however, is that viruses evolve also, allowing them to bypass that immunity.
And if a virus fails to do so, it disappears / goes extinct or becomes harmless.

, and it would be expected that long-range life is an innate need more valuable than the simple fact of multiplying and prolonging the species.

You're showing how little you understand of the process.
Selection pressures are on survival for the purpose of reproduction. And, depending on the "way of living" of the species, to also remain alive for the period that the off spring requires care / protection. Not beyond that.

Evolution is not a ladder toward "perfection" of totally immunity to anything and everything while being immortal.
Instead, selection pressures are only about being "good enough" at surviving and reproducing.

So instead of saying that they adapt and try to reproduce so that the species continues, the most logical thing would be that they look for a way to survive and perpetuate the proper individual existence, the true primary purpose of any living being. The desire to live forever is primary, but no evolutionary change will be able to reach that level of adaptation, immortality,

Evolution doesn't care about individual desire.

because the adaptive capacity of animals is not what evolutionists believe.

No. Rather: you don't seem to have a clue what selection pressure is all about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who taught animals to migrate?

Empty stomachs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As much as I try to imagine the scenario where some animals change shape and become other species at the same time as the conditions of their environment change, I cannot see any coherence in that.

Your fallacious argument from incredulity is noted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm going to explain myself another way. Imagine this scenario of millions of years in the supposed genetic tree of the species... we are going to isolate a single line from that tree, the one that goes from the ancestor of the cockroach to the ancestor of the butterfly. (Clearly, those ancestors are hypothetical, because no evolutionist has ever seen them, so they have to make them up.)

These two supposed ancestors are relatives, the butterfly's is later than the cockroach's, so one appears after the other, as if it were a descendant of that one. But in the middle of that path there should exist an intermediate ancestor, which would be a being half almost-cockroach and half almost-butterfly... a chimera. Have you ever seen a cockroach-butterfly?

Nor will you ever see a shark-crocodile, nor a crocodile-turtle , nor a hippopotamus-whale ... because those chimeras never existed, although the evolutionary myth preaches that they did exist.

Ow, great.... another crockoduck argument.

It's hard to take you seriously.

 

[F1fan]

If I may, that is likely because some believe strongly in the theory of evolution.

The evidence is overwhelming. The absurdity is why so many fervent believers don't understand the science, and believe Genesis has the answer.

But so far, no evidence for any God, or a created universe.

 

[Comradio251]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

Until Evolutionists can show hard physical evidence for the intermediate steps between the human brain and the link for consciousness developing over millions upon millions of years, and if neuroscientists were actually able to make a link between the brain and the consciousness experience itself in the first place which they are not even close to doing, then this argument is not even worth a discussion. Those are two prodigious hurdles to overcome for evolutionists, nonetheless.

Macro-evolution relies on a belief system whether it acknowledges this or not much like religion. It's always the assumption "everything must have evolved somehow" in the evolutionist's world view but It's just that they fail almost always with presenting their case. Micro-evolution is not a discussion because adaptation is not really an extraordinary process that we can't possibly observe unlike a species transitioning into a completely different species altogether. But adaptation to certain environmental factors is very pretty among lots of species. It's as if species were designed to naturally adapt to different environments and is more of a case for the unique natural process of creation.

I remember reading from two physicists that the probability of the evolution of the human genome occurring was so improbable that the sun would first cease to exist as a main sequence star and obliterate the earth before the probability could even begin! And they were trying to prove the contrary. Also, the probability was with two exponents. The first negative and the second positive: (a^-x)^y to (b^-x)^y. Macro-evolution is impossible.

~ barrow and tipler anthropic cosmological principle

 

[F1fan]

Until Evolutionists ....

So, you're a creationist. I can tell from this use of a demeaning term for the well-educated.

...can show hard physical evidence for the intermediate steps between the human brain and the link for consciousness developing over millions upon millions of years, and if neuroscientists were actually able to make a link between the brain and the consciousness experience itself in the first place which they are not even close to doing, then this argument is not even worth a discussion. Those are two prodigious hurdles to overcome for evolutionists, nonetheless.

So you acknowledge that brains and consciousness both exist. Do you acknowledge that consciousness is a condition of living brains, bot not dead brains, or that consciousness isn't observed in anything that has no brain?

And what is so troubling about consciousness emerging as brains evolve? Consciousness is a property of brains, and is a result of electrochemical processes.

Macro-evolution ...

More creationist wording..

...relies on a belief system whether it acknowledges this or not much like religion. It's always the assumption "everything must have evolved somehow" in the evolutionist's world view but It's just that they fail almost always with presenting their case. Micro-evolution is not a discussion because adaptation is not really an extraordinary process that we can't possibly observe unlike a species transitioning into a completely different species altogether. But adaptation to certain environmental factors is very pretty among lots of species. It's as if species were designed to naturally adapt to different environments and is more of a case for the unique natural process of creation.

Who told you this is true, and why did you believe them? This isn't what science reports.

I remember reading from two physicists that the probability of the evolution of the human genome occurring was so improbable that the sun would first cease to exist as a main sequence star and obliterate the earth before the probability could even begin! And they were trying to prove the contrary. Also, the probability was with two exponents. The first negative and the second positive: (a^-x)^y to (b^-x)^y. Macro-evolution is impossible.

~ barrow and tipler anthropic cosmological principle

If a lottery ticket was issued to everyone on earth the chance you will win is 1 in about 8 billion. But someone will win, as improbable it is.

What are the calculations that any gods exist? I notice no believer offers any odds.

 

[YoursTrue]

That raises the question of why merely believe when one can know. If one is not afraid to learn one can know how evolution occurred. One can know of the endless evidence for it. One can even know tests that could falsify it if it was wrong.

Endless evidence? Nah only in the part of playing games.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Endless evidence? Nah only in the part of playing games.

You may not believe that there is endless evidence, but that only disqualifies you from debating. Is it your religious beliefs that keep you from understanding a simple concept? When you make claims like the above it makes it look as if you have a problem with facing reality.

Are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence? That will help you to understand all of the court cases that creationists have lost. Judges are not experts on science, but they are experts on the concept of evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

You may not believe that there is endless evidence, but that only disqualifies you from debating.

That's ok. I know this is a debate platform, but in my mind there is no debate. Evolution (the theory of per Darwinian style) just isn't true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's ok. I know this is a debate platform, but in my mind there is no debate. Evolution (the theory of per Darwinian style) just isn't true.

Evolution is a fact of life.

 

[F1fan]

That's ok. I know this is a debate platform, but in my mind there is no debate. Evolution (the theory of per Darwinian style) just isn't true.

A decision that is personal bias, and due to negative religious influence. Notice that Christians exist who accept science, including evolution. Even the Catholic Church does.

The less education a person has the more likely they will reject science. The better educated accept science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's ok. I know this is a debate platform, but in my mind there is no debate. Evolution (the theory of per Darwinian style) just isn't true.

Your mind is demonstrably wrong. You might as well say "in my mind there is no debate. Two plus Two equals Four just isn't true. It is 22."

You refuse to discuss this rationally, you are afraid to learn the basics of science. Creationists cannot afford to learn the basics of science including the scientific method and the concept of evidence because they would have to admit that they were wrong.

Creationists won only one lawsuit ever when it came to teaching evolution in US schools. And that was the Scopes Monkey Trial. And the only reason that they won that is because the judge was an unfair judge that would not allow any evidence for evolution to be presented to the jury. The trial was so crooked that the ACLU begged the teacher to continue on, but since he only got a very minimal slap on the wrist he was done with the publicity that he never wanted in the first place. Since then every trial has included evidence and the creationists always came away looking foolishly ignorant. To be a creationist one either has to be very dishonest or one has to be very ignorant, or a mixture of both. I have not seen a creationist that is both honest and informed. Your defense is to keep yourself from learning even though you know that you should.

 

[leroy]

Empty stomachs.

What came first

1 the ability to digest food

Or

2 or the instinct / reaction of looking for food?



One would be useless without theother……….so both would have to evolve at the same time in order to get a selectable benefit

 

[leroy]

That's ok. I know this is a debate platform, but in my mind there is no debate. Evolution (the theory of per Darwinian style) just isn't true.

This is too much justification for the standards in this forum………… next time all you have to do is say “you are wrong because I say so”

 

[leroy]

Are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence?

Yessssssss “evidence” is part the large list of words that you have not been willing to dfine in the past.



A clear and useful definition would be great for future discussions

 

[F1fan]

What came first

1 the ability to digest food

Or

2 or the instinct / reaction of looking for food?



One would be useless without theother……….so both would have to evolve at the same time in order to get a selectable benefit

So you don’t understand sarcasm any better than science.

 

[F1fan]

Yessssssss “evidence” is part the large list of words that you have not been willing to dfine in the past.



A clear and useful definition would be great for future discussions

If you don’t understand this word then why are you challenging science?

Why are you asserting anything at all?