Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[outhouse]

This is a religion forum. If you have questions about evolution, why don't you ask them on a science forum?

Because this section was made so the combination of either of the two, can be addressed.

But im afraid these are rhetorical questions with no real answer looked for by OP. Its pretty obvious he has no interest of learning this topic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Evolution is false because it disagrees with the Bible and the Quran. Likewise a Spherical Earth is false for the same reason.
Why, please why can't people just read their sacred texts with a tad bit more of an enlightened mind, lest they sound identical to the gentleman above? This whole "there is not evidence for evolution" as just a ludicrous as what you see in this video. It is equally as ridiculous, no more, no less.

Strange how evolutionists can just deny freedom is real and relevant in the universe and then complain of the ideas of others as ludicrous. Get the beam out of your own eye.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On closer inspection all these socalled useless leftovers serve a function.

Vestigial doesn't mean "useless", it means "reduced in function". I don't believe Salvador said anything contrary to that, merely that they are "no longer needed". That doesn't mean "useless", it just means "not necessary".

By the way, may I ask what function human male nipples have? Just curious.

But you are right that evolution theory predicts lots of useless and inefficient organisms, due to the randomness of mutations. Evolution theory predicts organisms to be sort of monsters with lots of useless bulges and weird things which natural selection slowly weeds out. And mathematics show that the total chaos of random mutation wins against selection.

I would be very interested in seeing this mathematical formula that takes into account all possible forms of mutation in all potential organisms versus all the potential selective pressures present in various environments around the planet, please.

 

[Windwalker]

Strange how evolutionists can just deny freedom is real and relevant in the universe and then complain of the ideas of others as ludicrous. Get the beam out of your own eye.

Where does evolution teach freedom is not real? I accept evolution as valid scientifically, and it has nothing to do with determinism. Get your facts straight, before accusing me of having a beam in my eye. I accept God, and I accept evolution. Imagine that!

 

[Revoltingest]

And mathematics show that the total chaos of random mutation wins against selection.

Now you did it....you must show your work (the math).

 

[Godobeyer]

You might put it that way, I suppose, but there is a danger of seeing it as more directed than it actually is.

Evolution, at least when the word is used in biology, has no purpose, no will, and no set destination. It is indeed quite "dumb", so to speak.

It is just a word for describing the gradual changes in frequencies of variations along several generations.

I see it from different angle , where is the problem to make more angles ?

let's suppose that evolutists said "I discover that humans evoluted by missing organs "

humans without heart , then comes human with heart , step by step ...etc

is not this evolution ?

More like it has never been proposed or appeared to be necessary.

Missing organs are a big deal, more often than not. Not too many organs can be disposed of without making a lifeform inviable or at least seriously disadvantaged.

All of the intermediate generations between two specific lifeforms are, after all, succesfull enough to survive and have offspring of their own.

I'm not sure why you expected previous ancestors to be missing organs.

For me it's necessary .

so lifeform could be only with intact body ? so evolution with missing organs could not be existed , step by step ?

I mean like the rain building the stream of a new river , drop by drop .

why not ? our very old ancestors could had missing organs ?? for exemple human without eyes , next human with eyes?

 

[Godobeyer]

I mean : it's evolution mean , the body evoluting (updating) ?
so why our ancestors did not have missing organs ?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Where does evolution teach freedom is not real? I accept evolution as valid scientifically, and it has nothing to do with determinism. Get your facts straight, before accusing me of having a beam in my eye. I accept God, and I accept evolution. Imagine that!

But if you really accepted freedom is real, then you would support theory about how things, and organisms, are chosen to be the way they are.

I mean, you do not really accept freedom is real, when you have no knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I see it from different angle , where is the problem to make more angles ?

let's suppose that evolutists said "I discover that humans evoluted by missing organs "

humans without heart , then comes human with heart , step by step ...etc

is not this evolution ?

It would be, but if it happened like that it wouldn't be a simple case of "no heart" then "partial heart" then "complete heart". The human body needs blood to move around it in order to function, so if we didn't have a heart, we must have had some other organ that pumped blood around the body that did a good enough job. Over time, through subsequent generations, the organ changes (perhaps increases in function, or improves its ability to pump blood) becomes the organ that we now describe as the modern Heart", but at no point was it strictly "non-existent" or "partly formed" - the heart would be the result of variations upon what is already there, either improving or increasing in function.

For me it's necessary .

so lifeform could be only with intact body ? so evolution with missing organs could not be existed , step by step ?

I mean like the rain building the stream of a new river , drop by drop .

why not ? our very old ancestors could had missing organs ?? for exemple human without eyes , next human with eyes?

See above. It doesn't work like that. Humans evolved from organisms that had eyes, though perhaps those eyes functioned slightly differently to our own. Their ancestors will have also had eyes, or at least some sort of precursor to eyes that served similar - or lesser - functions. The ancestors of THEIR ancestors may have not had eyes, but may have had the cupped patches of ligh-sensitive cells that eyes evolved from, etc.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But if you really accepted freedom is real, then you would support theory about how things, and organisms, are chosen to be the way they are.

This makes no sense. Just because you believe freedom exists doesn't mean you believe evolution is non-random. That's a complete non-sequitur.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Vestigial doesn't mean "useless", it means "reduced in function". I don't believe Salvador said anything contrary to that, merely that they are "no longer needed". That doesn't mean "useless", it just means "not necessary".

By the way, may I ask what function human male nipples have? Just curious.


I would be very interested in seeing this mathematical formula that takes into account all possible forms of mutation in all potential organisms versus all the potential selective pressures present in various environments around the planet, please.

Actually you must show the mathematics of it for evolution theory to be accepted. I only read comments from various mathematicians that it doesn't add up, and since there is no mathematics saying it does add up......

What the total chaos means of random mutation is not just that lions are having mutations in the direction of zebra's or somesuch, but that lions are having mutations in the direction of making them a tablecloth. Randomness means any direction whatsoever. You can simply add to the power of 10 for a while of all the possible configurations of CATG. And all this natural selection must clean up. It is nonsense that this can work, it doesn't, it requires a way of choosing to beat the odds.

What evolutionists do instead is look at mutations as they are happening, and then calling them random, and then they say that this is the mathematics of random mutation. But there is no evidence that these mutations are random, and more likely the mutations are intelligently chosen.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This makes no sense. Just because you believe freedom exists doesn't mean you believe evolution is non-random. That's a complete non-sequitur.

It does follow, that when you believe freedom is real, you should have knowledge about how things are chosen. And why you then would have 0 knowledge about how organisms are chosen to be the way they are......obviously he doesn't accept freedom is real, but just like to say so as some kind of political statement.

 

[Salvador]

Greetings, Mohammad. I'll submit to you some overwhelming empirical and mathematical evidence for evolution.

There is overwhelming proof of evolution. There are millions of fossils to show transitions and millions of animals to compare DNA. Chromosome 2 proves that humans share a common ancestor with Great Apes who have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while we have 23 pairs. Where did our 24th pair go? Evolutionary scientists have found evidence that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Chromosomes have a telomere on each end and a centromere in the middle. So if a chromosome had been fused, it would have three telomeres (one on each end and one in the middle) and two centromeres. Guess what...scientists found it. Chromosome 2 has three telomeres and two centromeres (unlike any other chromosome). Somewhere along the line, we broke off and took our own evolutionary route, although we humans still belong in the family of Great Apes. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) also prove Evolution. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 16 pairs of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Greetings, Mohammad. I'll submit to you some overwhelming empirical and mathematical evidence for evolution.

There is overwhelming proof of evolution. There are millions of fossils to show transitions and millions of animals to compare DNA. Chromosome 2 proves that humans share a common ancestor with Great Apes who have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while we have 23 pairs. Where did our 24th pair go? Evolutionary scientists have found evidence that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Chromosomes have a telomere on each end and a centromere in the middle. So if a chromosome had been fused, it would have three telomeres (one on each end and one in the middle) and two centromeres. Guess what...scientists found it. Chromosome 2 has three telomeres and two centromeres (unlike any other chromosome). Somewhere along the line, we broke off and took our own evolutionary route, although we humans still belong in the family of Great Apes. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) also prove Evolution. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 16 pairs of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.

Obviously the similarity can also be some sort of design requirement, that it is functional. You talk about it as if it is non-functional, that either it is functional but might just as easily be functional in another way, or that it really serves no function whatsoever and is just an oddity of evolutionary history.

But if it is the only way for it to be functional, then yes 2 independent decisions may very well have the same result, because in choosing the function can be taken account of.

 

[Nietzsche]

But if you really accepted freedom is real, then you would support theory about how things, and organisms, are chosen to be the way they are.

I mean, you do not really accept freedom is real, when you have no knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe.

You...you're aware of Natural Selection right? The thing that weeds out the developments that don't work?

 

[Nietzsche]

I mean : it's evolution mean , the body evoluting (updating) ?
so why our ancestors did not have missing organs ?

They did. You just need to go extremely far back. I mean "fish-like thing" far.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually you must show the mathematics of it for evolution theory to be accepted.

Nonsense. You cannot possibly quantify such a complex process with as many potential variables as evolution with a simple mathematical equation. What supports evolution is the evidence and the empirical observations of the process itself. You do not need mathematics in order to accept something that already has a wealth of evidence and direct observation to confirm it.

I only read comments from various mathematicians that it doesn't add up, and since there is no mathematics saying it does add up......

I asked you to demonstrate why this is the case. "I have read comments from various mathematicians" is not an answer, nor even an adequate response, to this request. Can you or can you not present or explain the maths that means that evolution "doesn't add up", and if you cannot then why on earth do you choose to believe it?

What the total chaos means of random mutation is not just that lions are having mutations in the direction of zebra's or somesuch, but that lions are having mutations in the direction of making them a tablecloth. Randomness means any direction whatsoever. You can simply add to the power of 10 for a while of all the possible configurations of CATG. And all this natural selection must clean up. It is nonsense that this can work, it doesn't, it requires a way of choosing to beat the odds.

Absolutely nothing you have written here makes any kind of sense. What on earth makes you think that genetic mutation being random can make a lion into "a tablecloth"? You are aware that tablecloths don't have genes, right? Or did you think that tablecloths were naturally reproducing organisms?

What evolutionists do instead is look at mutations as they are happening, and then calling them random, and then they say that this is the mathematics of random mutation. But there is no evidence that these mutations are random, and more likely the mutations are intelligently chosen.

The evidence that mutations are random is that we cannot predict which and what kind of mutations will occur. That's the very definition of random - they behave in a way that is unpredictable and/or defies prediction. We know what can CAUSE mutations, and these processes require no intelligence whatsoever, but the variables are so great and numerous that it is currently impossible to predict which mutations will occur and where in living organisms. By definition, that makes them random. The assertion that it is more likely that they are intelligently chosen is merely baseless speculation without an iota of evidenciary support (unless you would like to present some).

It does follow, that when you believe freedom is real, you should have knowledge about how things are chosen. And why you then would have 0 knowledge about how organisms are chosen to be the way they are......obviously he doesn't accept freedom is real, but just like to say so as some kind of political statement.

Please explain what, precisely, is wrong with the following statement:

"I believe freedom exists; however, I believe mutations are random."

 

[outhouse]

YOU guys are wasting your time. At this point the whole thread amounts to POE.

He is just jerking you around and has no honest intention of wanting to debate this topic.


He is just trying in vain to poke holes in a science he is literally blind to.


You can show him 1 + 1 = 2, but due to his faith, the answer will always be 37 to him.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nonsense. You cannot possibly quantify such a complex process with as many potential variables as evolution with a simple mathematical equation. What supports evolution is the evidence and the empirical observations of the process itself. You do not need mathematics in order to accept something that already has a wealth of evidence and direct observation to confirm it.


I asked you to demonstrate why this is the case. "I have read comments from various mathematicians" is not an answer, nor even an adequate response, to this request. Can you or can you not present or explain the maths that means that evolution "doesn't add up", and if you cannot then why on earth do you choose to believe it?


Absolutely nothing you have written here makes any kind of sense. What on earth makes you think that genetic mutation being random can make a lion into "a tablecloth"? You are aware that tablecloths don't have genes, right? Or did you think that tablecloths were naturally reproducing organisms?


The evidence that mutations are random is that we cannot predict which and what kind of mutations will occur. That's the very definition of random - they behave in a way that is unpredictable and/or defies prediction. We know what can CAUSE mutations, and these processes require no intelligence whatsoever, but the variables are so great and numerous that it is currently impossible to predict which mutations will occur and where in living organisms. By definition, that makes them random. The assertion that it is more likely that they are intelligently chosen is merely baseless speculation without an iota of evidenciary support (unless you would like to present some).


Please explain what, precisely, is wrong with the following statement:

"I believe freedom exists; however, I believe mutations are random."

But the other evolutionist just refrenced calculations with endo virus whatever, saying it was extremely unlikely. And now suddenly ypu can't do calculations?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

YOU guys are wasting your time. At this point the whole thread amounts to POE.

He is just jerking you around and has no honest intention of wanting to debate this topic.


He is just trying in vain to poke holes in a science he is literally blind to.


You can show him 1 + 1 = 3, but due to his faith, the answer will always be 37 to him.

Evolutionists have a systematic irrational objection to any theory about decisions occuring in nature. Discussion will always turn toward this bizatre willful ignorance of evolutionists.