10 Evolution Is A Lie: Theory of Evolution Implies Death And Evil Are Good

[Bombila]

Googling cross-species adoption gets you a few articles, none of them very notable but together suggestive that the 'cuteness' factor, or some other factor or combination does operate more often than one would think in the wild. These adoptions seldom end well, it seems, with the exception of birds, many of whom seem willing to raise almost anything with feathers and sometimes without.

One article noted that carnivores fostered by prey animals (example kittens fostered by a chicken or raised with domestic rats) were observed as adults to not attack members of the species they were fostered with.

http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22353/50203-food-friend--animals-adopt-species

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't have any data, but it could be that simple. The reason why might be because of the reasons I postulated. That, and the alternative could have been much worse.

No, it can't, because how it works is not an explanation as to why the mechanism is there. What we don't know is whether the cross-species "cuteness" factor is a side-effect of the in-species "cuteness" factor, or whether it's something that has been selected for all on its own. From the cross-species adoptions that Bombila has posted, the broad nature of the effect does make it seem potentially to be more of a side effect.

 

[TheGnome]

No, it can't, because how it works is not an explanation as to why the mechanism is there. What we don't know is whether the cross-species "cuteness" factor is a side-effect of the in-species "cuteness" factor, or whether it's something that has been selected for all on its own. From the cross-species adoptions that Bombila has posted, the broad nature of the effect does make it seem potentially to be more of a side effect.

We'll never know. The fact is that cross-species "cuteness" factor has developed among multiple species. In-species "cuteness" factor is readily apparent in humans, and that reaction for babies is the same reaction for puppies and kittens. There are probably other factors involved, such as the "take care of anything that looks more like me and/or my group" factor, that are collaborative.

Again, we'll never know why.

 

[Chalnoth]

We'll never know.

Nah, that's bull. Well, I mean you and I may well never know why, but there's no reason to believe that it is undiscoverable.

 

[TheGnome]

Nah, that's bull. Well, I mean you and I may well never know why, but there's no reason to believe that it is undiscoverable.

How would you discover it other than using a time machine? Even if you could find one of the strategies winning out in nature as an independent event, it's not going to tell you if the same strategy happened with us.

 

[Chalnoth]

How would you discover it other than using a time machine? Even if you could find one of the strategies winning out in nature as an independent event, it's not going to tell you if the same strategy happened with us.

This is the same kind of argument that creationists use to attempt to state that scientists can't claim we have a common ancestor. There is no reason why we can't understand where the cross-species nature of this "cuteness detector" came from, because different hypotheses as to why it's cross-species will provide different predictions. I'm just not sure it's high on evolutionary biologists' priority list for things to investigate.

 

[TheGnome]

This is the same kind of argument that creationists use to attempt to state that scientists can't claim we have a common ancestor. There is no reason why we can't understand where the cross-species nature of this "cuteness detector" came from, because different hypotheses as to why it's cross-species will provide different predictions. I'm just not sure it's high on evolutionary biologists' priority list for things to investigate.

There are various independent ways to determine common ancestry, two big ones involve fossil evidence and genetic evidence.

Behaviors are way different, and inferring how a particular behavior evolves can be done based on observing other animals and then coming up with a few logical answers. Logic alone is not sufficient to understand real world phenomena. There may only be two possibilities, and in-species "cuteness" factor that leads to cross-species "cuteness" factor may be the most logical, but it may not have been the strategy the evolved in primates. You'll have a really good idea, but you're not going to be anywhere near as confident as, say, all living things on this planet share a common ancestor.

I attended an interesting seminar where an anthropologist discussed sexual selection mechanisms in primates in relationship to infanticide. There is this struggle between the fitness of the females of the fitness of the dominant males, and she was interested in mathematically modeling what strategy will win out given a particular situation over time. All really interesting, but how did human sexual strategies evolve? Maybe by researching other primates, you'll get a good idea, but you're never going to know, with certainty, what happened with humans.

 

[Chalnoth]

More difficult does not equate to impossible.

 

[TheGnome]

More difficult does not equate to impossible.

Evolutionary psychology can only go so deep before it starts asking questions that cannot be answered by scientists. With genes and fossils, you could go back in time and deal with more reasonable problems that extensive research may be able to resolve. How do you do that with behavioral traits? That's where philosophy, with the help of science, comes in.

 

[Bombila]

Cuteness spreading a little thin, but still there.


http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/01/27/3197_news_pf.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?img....microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLR_en&sa=N

 

[DarkCougar555]

Hey MorkandMindy - Is that thread you were talked about? I'd searched for your post that you PM'ed me about something.

Anyway, I find it pretty interesting. But I somewhat don't understand what people (who are on youtube video clip) said because there is no subtitle or CC, and the texts are too tiny to read... So, I don't have any opinion on this thread...

 

[Chalnoth]

Evolutionary psychology can only go so deep before it starts asking questions that cannot be answered by scientists. With genes and fossils, you could go back in time and deal with more reasonable problems that extensive research may be able to resolve. How do you do that with behavioral traits? That's where philosophy, with the help of science, comes in.

Absurd. Behavioral traits are traits like any other. They can be linked to genes/epigenetics like any other trait can. There is no fundamental difference between teasing out descent trees and determining the causes of a particular trait. There are only degrees of difficulty.

To put it another way, there are multiple possible ways that it could have happened, but only one way that it did happen. Since the different ways in which it could have happened would leave different observable results, it is possible to distinguish which one of the possibilities actually did happen.

 

[allhart]

You say that you exist and you won't believe anything that you can't see. Why doesn't God just come show Himself to you? Well He could do that and believe it or not one day He will, but He requires us to have faith. He could also make all of us worship Him and again one day He will, but if He did that now what would it mean? Nothing!! If we have no choice then we are slaves. If you don't believe in God then where did we all come from? Evolution? Please don't tell me you believe that, not after telling me you have to see to believe. There is much more proof in the Bible than there is in Evolution. Do the math. Do you have any idea what the chances are on just one cell coming into existence by random chance? Now multiply that number by the billions of different cells it takes to make up a living human/animal. Wow if you believe that you have more faith than I have ever thought of having. I just don't have enough faith to believe that two gases came together a zillion years ago and now here I am. I can enjoy music, order pizza over my cell phone and type messages to you on a computer, and it all started by to inert gases. Wow, and of course I am to believe that without any proof, because, well you know we have not advanced far enough yet to be able to prove it. Maybe after another zillion years we will be able to prove we came from two inert gases. You can believe in the ozone layer that you can't see ,but you look at evidence of its exsitance; however,when it come to God Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that Christians present to you for God's existence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You say that you exist and you won't believe anything that you can't see. Why doesn't God just come show Himself to you? Well He could do that and believe it or not one day He will, but He requires us to have faith. He could also make all of us worship Him and again one day He will, but if He did that now what would it mean? Nothing!! If we have no choice then we are slaves. If you don't believe in God then where did we all come from? Evolution? Please don't tell me you believe that, not after telling me you have to see to believe. There is much more proof in the Bible than there is in Evolution. Do the math. Do you have any idea what the chances are on just one cell coming into existence by random chance? Now multiply that number by the billions of different cells it takes to make up a living human/animal. Wow if you believe that you have more faith than I have ever thought of having. I just don't have enough faith to believe that two gases came together a zillion years ago and now here I am. I can enjoy music, order pizza over my cell phone and type messages to you on a computer, and it all started by to inert gases. Wow, and of course I am to believe that without any proof, because, well you know we have not advanced far enough yet to be able to prove it. Maybe after another zillion years we will be able to prove we came from two inert gases.

You posted the exact same thing in another thread. Don't make me report you for trolling.

 

[Chalnoth]

Wow, this was a rambling post.

You say that you exist and you won't believe anything that you can't see.

It's not nearly that simple. We believe in lots of things that we can't see. This isn't about sight, but rather about evidence. Evidence can come in many different forms. The important aspect is that the evidence is verifiable by independent persons and independent methods. This helps to guard against human error.

But there simply is no verifiable evidence for any deity, so why should we believe in one?

If you don't believe in God then where did we all come from? Evolution? Please don't tell me you believe that, not after telling me you have to see to believe.

We can see evolution occurring today, and the effects of past evolution are all around us. This just tells me you are completely ignorant as to the evidence for evolution.

There is much more proof in the Bible than there is in Evolution. Do the math. Do you have any idea what the chances are on just one cell coming into existence by random chance?

Wow. You know nothing at all about evolution, do you? Firstly, the field of study that describes the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution describes how life diversifies once it starts. Abiogenesis describes how life starts. And from the work we've done so far, it's looking like the probability of life occurring under the right conditions (which the early Earth had) is essentially one.

But even then, the science of evolution doesn't depend upon how life started. Once life does start, however, the way it changes through time is accurately described by evolution. At least as far as the theory of evolution is concerned, it is entirely conceivable that some deity would have specially created many different forms of life, and evolution would only describe what happened after that initial creation. Now, the evidence says that this didn't happen, that life started once some 3.8-4 billion years ago on Earth, but as far as the theory of evolution is concerned it would work whether life on Earth was young or old. It just so happens that the evidence points to an old Earth.

I can enjoy music, order pizza over my cell phone and type messages to you on a computer, and it all started by to inert gases.

The reason why you can do all these things is because of the very science you are deriding. Learn about evolution before saying it's all bunk.

 

[allhart]

Wow, this was a rambling post.

It's not nearly that simple. We believe in lots of things that we can't see. This isn't about sight, but rather about evidence. Evidence can come in many different forms. The important aspect is that the evidence is verifiable by independent persons and independent methods. This helps to guard against human error.

But there simply is no verifiable evidence for any deity, so why should we believe in one?


We can see evolution occurring today, and the effects of past evolution are all around us. This just tells me you are completely ignorant as to the evidence for evolution.


Wow. You know nothing at all about evolution, do you? Firstly, the field of study that describes the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution describes how life diversifies once it starts. Abiogenesis describes how life starts. And from the work we've done so far, it's looking like the probability of life occurring under the right conditions (which the early Earth had) is essentially one.

But even then, the science of evolution doesn't depend upon how life started. Once life does start, however, the way it changes through time is accurately described by evolution. At least as far as the theory of evolution is concerned, it is entirely conceivable that some deity would have specially created many different forms of life, and evolution would only describe what happened after that initial creation. Now, the evidence says that this didn't happen, that life started once some 3.8-4 billion years ago on Earth, but as far as the theory of evolution is concerned it would work whether life on Earth was young or old. It just so happens that the evidence points to an old Earth.


The reason why you can do all these things is because of the very science you are deriding. Learn about evolution before saying it's all bunk.

Paul addressed this very point, but here goes. I believe that God put in every persons heart several things. First is the knowledge that they are immortal. Yeah that is right, I believe you are just as immortal as I am. The problem is where you will spend eternity, but that is another discussion altogether. Next He put the knowledge of a superior being in everyone's heart. Why else does every society which has ever existed looked for God, in one way or another? Even you have, I read it on your page, 'we are our own gods.' Look at people who believe in reincarnation. They claim that they don't believe in God, yet, they claim if you live a bad life now you will come back as a victim. Who says?? Who decides who has to be victims and who gets to have a good life next? Must be someone in charge! God does not judge people on what they don't know or don't understand, He only judges us on what we do know and what we do understand. If a person has never heard of Jesus or God, they still know inside what is right and what is wrong, that is what God judges them on. On the other hand, those of us that do understand the plan of salvation but turn our backs on it have no excuse. Someday we will stand before Christ and have to explain why we did not believe and ask for forgiveness. Was it pride? Was it that we knew we were doing sinful things and just could not stand the thought of giving them up? So what is the reason? How hard is it to ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins? It costs nothing and it will gain you eternal life. One other question, what if I am totally wrong and none of this is true? What have I lost? I enjoy my life more now then I ever did while I was out drinking and living a sinful life. Now think about this, what if on the other hand I am right? What have you got to lose???
I know you might find this hard to understand but Jesus loves you no matter what you think of Him. He came to earth to suffer and die even knowing that you would feel this way. That is an awesome thought. God the creator of the universe would have died (and did) for you.

 

[Bombila]

Allhart, accepting the overwhelming physical evidence for evolution does not mean that you necessarily reject the concept of God or Jesus or Heaven.

Allhart, not believing in God does not mean that a person wants to go out and drink, drug and debauch. Just because you used to lead a drunken 'sinful' life when you weren't a bornagain Christian doesn't mean everyone has the same experience. I neither drink nor drug nor steal nor murder, etc., and am faithfully married for almost eighteen years - no belief in God required, only a good upbringing and a human desire to be happy and loved.

 

[allhart]

Allhart, accepting the overwhelming physical evidence for evolution does not mean that you necessarily reject the concept of God or Jesus or Heaven.

Allhart, not believing in God does not mean that a person wants to go out and drink, drug and debauch. Just because you used to lead a drunken 'sinful' life when you weren't a bornagain Christian doesn't mean everyone has the same experience. I neither drink nor drug nor steal nor murder, etc., and am faithfully married for almost eighteen years - no belief in God required, only a good upbringing and a human desire to be happy and loved.

no God, no original sin, no punishment." That kind of reminds me of the person who is trying to cross a freeway in California. Just close your eyes, see, no traffic, no danger, no problem... It just doesn't work that way

 

[TheGnome]

Absurd. Behavioral traits are traits like any other. They can be linked to genes/epigenetics like any other trait can. There is no fundamental difference between teasing out descent trees and determining the causes of a particular trait. There are only degrees of difficulty.

To put it another way, there are multiple possible ways that it could have happened, but only one way that it did happen. Since the different ways in which it could have happened would leave different observable results, it is possible to distinguish which one of the possibilities actually did happen.

Except that there are several different behaviors that probably have evolved since then, so what may have been a major increase in fitness back then may be marginal now as a result of other mechanisms that keep us rearing our kids. That may be permanently obscured. The theory with the most evidence is that out-species cuteness factor is a result of in-species. Why? Enhanced fitness. How certain are we of the why? Certain enough to be comfortable, but we'll never know for sure. It's like the problem with gene duplication and loss events.

 

[Naraoia]

no God, no original sin, no punishment." That kind of reminds me of the person who is trying to cross a freeway in California. Just close your eyes, see, no traffic, no danger, no problem... It just doesn't work that way

What in Bombila's post is that meant to address?