Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[Arius]

That’s because hypothesis testing has been destroyed by evolution.

Yeah, evolution by Intelligent Design, .. lol.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Throughout this whole OP I have continuously shown how the word 'science' has been used synonymously with Evolution. If anyone doesn't agree with the Carl Sagan

millions and billions and trillions of years ago BB-Evolution fairytales, they are accused of hating science, .. which is used in children's programming, cartoons, school. Slowly but surely the BB-Evolution Religion is destroying the very foundation of science, which is supposed to be about "observing the world around us", .. not making up ridiculous never observed stories out of skull and bones dug up from graves, and looking in heaven and seeing stars, making up fantastic story how it all came from a big explosion and expanding in, .. umm, .. in no one knows, only "Hawking's 70's answering" machine knows what the universe is expanding into? (actually, that answering machine is truly awesome, beats even IBM's Watson. Look how many books it has written about universes beyond our own. I should have kept mine, it would be worth millions.)

So you really are just dense. It's horrifying to know that you don't understand basic science.

 

[Speedwell]

The random variation continues but not to the level of species transition.

No, it doesn't. If the selection criteria remain unchanged, then there is no reason for the phenotype to change. The same variants are selected out of each new generation. It is only when a population of the species is subjected to a new set of selection criteria that the outliers of the distribution of variation begin to be selected. As the outlier phenotype begins to be more successful, it will become more common through out the population. As this goes on over many generations, the population will move closer to the optimum phenotype for the new selection criteria, but the population will still produce a range of variants with each new generation, "just in case." If the new environment is sufficiently different from the old, or the selection criteria continue to change you will eventually find that the population is sufficiently different from the parent population to be regarded by biologists as a new species.

 

[Arius]

That's an opinion. That humans are animals (no scare quotes needed) and apes is a FACT.

Animals are multicellular.
Animals are heterotrophic, obtaining their energy by consuming energy-releasing food substances.
Animals typically reproduce sexually.
Animals are made up of cells that do not have cell walls.
Animals are capable of motion in some stage of their lives.
Animals are able to respond quickly to external stimuli as a result of nerve cells, muscle or contractile tissue, or both.​

So the body of animals are pretty much the same as humans, excellent observation. And let me guess, we all turn to dust from which we were taken, right? Now let's see what we know about humans:

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.​

Apes are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

Hey, the apes were created very much like us humans, it's amazing how anyone can even tell the difference between us and the apes, especially from the highly social lifestyles we humans share with apes.

It's a shame we have to keep them in cages when around humans, I mean we should be able to party down with them, not shove them into some cold, cemented dungeons and throw some bamboos for them to chew on, right?
Did anyone explain the scientific importance in educating whites about the similarities the Negroes shared with other apes?

You have been corrected on this by many of us many times now and yet you keep repeating it. Why are you doing that? Are you immune to correction or are you simply trolling?

Again, humans did NOT evolve from gorillas. Humans AND chimpanzees AND gorillas share a common ancestor.

And for the hundredth time, what "species" was this animal called "Common Ancestor"

Here, I'll even provide some options to choose from:
*chimp
*bonobo
*human
*gorilla
*orangutan
or banana? All apes love bananas, so I thought I'd throw that in?
which?
Was it even an animals species? I hear a lot about these reptilian creatures, could the common ancestor been a reptilian shapeshifter? Maybe they were the ones who stepped in and shapeshifted for all the other animals so they can evolve, that's why there are no know species of common ancestor for ANY animal type!? We have 8 million species, but no "common ancestor" for any of them!

 

[Gene2memE]

They both are atheistic in their beliefs, they both rob graves and have this infatuation with skull & bones, they both discriminate against the darker skinned humans, they both justify lawlessness and support the "Do As Thou Wilt" ideology where you take no responsibility for your actions (my environment caused, or commanded me to do it),

Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. - Gaylord Simpson

Here's the rest of that quote:

Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material. It is, however, a gross representation to say that he is just an accident or nothing but an animal. Among all the myriad forms of matter and of life on the earth, or as far as we know in the universe, man is unique. He happens to present the highest form of organization of matter and energy that has ever appeared. Recognition of this kinship with the rest of the universe is necessary for understanding him, but his essential nature is defined by qualities found nowhere else, not by those he has in common with apes, fishes, trees, fire, or anything other than himself.​

George - Wikipedia Gaylord_Simpson (notice the black cat on his shoulder in the picture!?)

That's not a cat, black or otherwise. It appears to be a loris.

they both worship pagan gods (see CERN Shiva, the god of destruction)

Well, as Mr Simpson started as a Christian, but de-converted into self described agnosticism, he didn't worship anything really.


Seriously though, you're just spouting long punctured conspiracy theory nonsense now. If you've got an intellectual, rational objection to evolutionary biology, most people here would be all ears.

Unfortunately, your understanding of evolutionary biology is so poor that what you're attempting to refute is your own flawed understanding of the subject. You've set up a strawman - one that has only the vaguest resemblance to the actual biological theory, mostly just the name - and you're trying to puncture a fiction of your own fevered imagination.

Amusing, but futile. And frustrating for everyone else involved - or at least those who have a modicum of education on the subject.

 

[Arius]

My goodness! You can't even get that right. The entire Wiccan Rede reads "An it harm none, do as thou wilt." Not the same thing at all.

You call me an animal of the ape family, an animal, and you're going to tell me "do as thou wilt and harm none?"
What does harm even mean to evolving animals? There is no will, or intention in evolution, we react to our goddess environment Mother Nature:

So don't go soft on me now; "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" my foot. It's survival baby, ain't nothing wrong with survival, it's evolution.

Why would you guys knock the Bible, knock Jesus Christ, claim a cosmological accident that through no will of anyone or anything evolved us human animals which you shown no different than any other animal add the "harm none" to do as thou wilt? Harm none, in meteor showers, in the Ice Age, in tectonic plate movements which wiped entire population of "Common Ancestors" of 8 million species of the earth?

 

[Gene2memE]

And for the hundredth time, what "species" was this animal called "Common Ancestor"

Here, I'll even provide some options to choose from:
*chimp
*bonobo
*human
*gorilla
*orangutan

For the umpteenth time, none of those.

Those are all modern, extant primate species. Do you actually understand what 'ancestor' means in a biological sense?

The last common ancestor of humans and chimps is extinct. The species died off somewhere around 5 to 7 million years ago (plus or minus about 1 million years). We don't know the exact species, but it would be visually similar to a mix between Australopithecus sediba and Australopithecus afarensis - probably very close to Nyanzapithecus alesi.

 

[Arius]

Calling evolution a religion makes people look like they have no idea what they're talking about.

Don't call evolution a religion, and always use the word evolution along with the word science, .. got it.

Why do lies like this keep getting repeated? Ota Benga was NOT exhibited as some sort of missing link. He was exhibited in an anthropological (as in human societies) exhibit. He was also brought to the U.S. by a missionary.

He was exhibited in an anthropological (as in human societies) exhibit olding a baby ape, .. riiight.
Brought here by a missionary, let me guess, a Jesuit missionary right? Like the one who invented the Big-Bang theory.

It's hard to remember something that never happened, not for the least of reasons that evolution is neither a ideology nor a belief system.

"This creature evolved over millions and billions of years, and here are some bone fragments to prove it", .. not a belief system? Do you know how fairytales start off, .. you know: "Long, long time ago, on tectonic plates floating far, far away, .."

 

[Arius]

Here's the rest of that quote:

Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material. It is, however, a gross representation to say that he is just an accident or nothing but an animal. Among all the myriad forms of matter and of life on the earth, or as far as we know in the universe, man is unique. He happens to present the highest form of organization of matter and energy that has ever appeared. Recognition of this kinship with the rest of the universe is necessary for understanding him, but his essential nature is defined by qualities found nowhere else, not by those he has in common with apes, fishes, trees, fire, or anything other than himself.​

​

Aaaww, .."It is, however, a gross representation to say that he is just an accident or nothing but an animal." now isn't that sweet.

Let's see now, we have here an amoeba, and over there is a human, both been evolving for the past 2.1 billion years by no ones plan or will, they just did. Now please tell me In evolutionary terms why is the human unique, and not the amoeba?

I'm glad you posted that, I never realized just what a hypocrite this Simpson fella really was? Look how he dehumanizes, belittles Gods creation of man, and then he makes him unique, special over all of creation, so people would not throw him out of schools by his ears.

That's not a cat, black or otherwise. It appears to be a loris.

It looks like a black cat, which fits a warlock perfectly.

Well, as Mr Simpson started as a Christian, but de-converted into self described agnosticism, he didn't worship anything really.

Oh yes he did worship something, and the black cat on his shoulder say it all.

Seriously though, you're just spouting long punctured conspiracy theory nonsense now. If you've got an intellectual, rational objection to evolutionary biology, most people here would be all ears.

Sure, why not? Once again: "what is the species of the human "Common Ancestor"?

Unfortunately, your understanding of evolutionary biology is so poor that what you're attempting to refute is your own flawed understanding of the subject. You've set up a strawman - one that has only the vaguest resemblance to the actual biological theory, mostly just the name - and you're trying to puncture a fiction of your own fevered imagination.

Stop stalling, what kind of animal species was the human "Common Ancestor"?

Amusing, but futile. And frustrating for everyone else involved - or at least those who have a modicum of education on the subject.

Good, then let an educated Evolutionist answer me: what kind of animal species was the human "Common Ancestor"?

 

[Gene2memE]

Sure, why not? Once again: "what is the species of the human "Common Ancestor"?

That's not an "intellectual, rational objection to evolutionary biology", that's just a gap in our knowledge.

Once again, the exact species that represents the last common ancestor between humans and other primates is undiscovered. We don't know what it is.

Now, how does not knowing which precise species our this last common ancestor is invalidate evolutionary biology in general, or our knowledge of recent (~10-12 million year) primate and human evolutionary descent?

Arguing that a gap or unsolved problem in evolutionary biology invalidates the general body of evolutionary theory is like arguing that an unsolved equation invalidates an entire field of mathematics.

 

[USincognito]

Brought here by a missionary, let me guess, a Jesuit missionary right? Like the one who invented the Big-Bang theory.

Maybe, instead of guessing, you could try learning.
Pioneer African Missionary: Samuel Phillips Verner on JSTOR
>> Pioneer African Missionary: Samuel Phillips Verner
by John R. Crawford
Journal of Presbyterian History (1962-1985)
Vol. 60, No. 1 (SPRING 1982), pp. 42-57 <<

"This creature evolved over millions and billions of years, and here are some bone fragments to prove it", .. not a belief system?

That's not belief system. That's a straw man. Because if you are claiming the only evidence for evolution is "some bone fragments" you're either ignorant or lying.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I felt the tug on the line.

Not sure that your opinion is a valid opinion. The current theory is String theory, which implies multiple universes, are you sure that the primate can understand everything?

String theory is not 'the current theory'. String theory is one possible theory, and a particularly bizarre one at that. The main theory in physics is the standard model.

Feel free to explain the mathematics of the theory of relativity to us. Perhaps you can break new ground in sub atomic physics, they seem to have hit a brick wall. In attempting to understand these exotic entities, I have heard it said, that our mathematics is insufficient to understand the results of the Large Hadron collider.

At no point did I say that everyone could understand everything.

If you do your research you will discover that there are paradoxes, littered through our present understanding of the universe.

But the paradoxes are small, and the amount that we understand is large. See the predictive power of the standard model.

The size and rate of volcanism appears to have been larger in the past. The largest eruptions we know of all occurred millions of years ago. Is geology sufficient in itself to decipher the rate and scale of volcanism in the distant past?

The process of volcanism is the same, according to the evidence. The frequency may be different. In my post I compared this to meteor bombardment. Multiple lines of evidence agree concerning the rate and scale of volcanism in the past. Is there anything that to you

The theory of relativity can make accurate predictions, yet ToE breaks down as you approach the singularity. The ToE also fails at the sub atomic level. It is not whether a theory can accurately predict events, the theory must cover all the bases. Hence, we have a new theory, String theory, a possible theory of everything.

What do you mean by 'ToE'. Do you mean 'Theory of Evolution'? If so, it has nothing at all to do with 'the singularity', and as it applies to living organisms, nothing to do with the subatomic level.

We definitely have evidence for the existence of God, even observations, here is what He looks like.

I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.
(Danial 10:5-6)

Religious books are not reliable sources. We know this because there are many religious books in the world, and they disagree with each other. At least the vast majority of them are wrong, and from the evidence, all of them are.

It cannot be known whether mathematical axioms are true, that is why they are called axioms.

Mathematical axioms are by definition true. This has been explained to you. Here is a dictionary definition of axiom. axiom | Definition of axiom in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Science is an attempt to understand space time by employing observation, measurement, testing, e.t.c. Science is assuming that all space time is an observable reality, the last fifty years in science is teaching us that it may not be comprehensible.

Anything that is not observable reality cannot have any effect on our universe, because the effect would in itself be observable. E.g. revelation would be observable. If something has no observable effect on our universe, then no-one, including religious people, have any way of knowing it. So, any claims that they do, are baseless.

The last fifty years in science has resulted in huge advances in our understanding of the universe. That's the opposite of showing that it may not be comprehensible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

​

Aaaww, .."It is, however, a gross representation to say that he is just an accident or nothing but an animal." now isn't that sweet.

Let's see now, we have here an amoeba, and over there is a human, both been evolving for the past 2.1 billion years by no ones plan or will, they just did. Now please tell me In evolutionary terms why is the human unique, and not the amoeba?

I'm glad you posted that, I never realized just what a hypocrite this Simpson fella really was? Look how he dehumanizes, belittles Gods creation of man, and then he makes him unique, special over all of creation, so people would not throw him out of schools by his ears.



It looks like a black cat, which fits a warlock perfectly.



Oh yes he did worship something, and the black cat on his shoulder say it all.



Sure, why not? Once again: "what is the species of the human "Common Ancestor"?



Stop stalling, what kind of animal species was the human "Common Ancestor"?



Good, then let an educated Evolutionist answer me: what kind of animal species was the human "Common Ancestor"?

Yep. Definitely a troll.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yep. Definitely a troll.

So an individual can evolve from a human to a troll? See, there's all the evidence we need!

 

[Larniavc]

All wrong?

So why should anybody care about string theory?

The big bang theory is the idea that if we go back early enough in the history of the universe—and we can do this, of course, by looking at starlight coming to us from billions of years ago—we will see a very hot and dense period where the universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter. And that explosion or hot state left remnants that we can observe today in the microwave background. So we know that that aspect of the theory is true. If we push back even farther, that hotter or denser state becomes even hotter and denser. And if we extrapolate using Einstein's theory of general relativity, we find total disaster. That is, we find a singularity, in which the forces that act on particles become infinitely strong. Things break down completely, and the theory no longer makes sense. Our conclusion is not that the universe doesn't make sense, but that the equations are wrong. They're applicable maybe at later times, but they're not applicable at the beginning of the universe. So we desperately need something like string theory appears to be—a theory that is consistent. (David Gross shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics)

If you have an issue with what David Gross said, then take it up with him.

String theory is a broad and varied subject that attempts to address a number of deep questions of fundamental physics. String theory has been applied to a variety of problems in black hole physics, early universe cosmology, nuclear physics, and condensed matter physics, and it has stimulated a number of major developments in pure mathematics. Because string theory potentially provides a unified description of gravity and particle physics, it is a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. (wikipedia)

The theory of relativity has it's own problems.

I meant you linking ToE to things like the atomic scale.

Much comprehension reading?

 

[Larniavc]

Did I miss something?

With every single post you make.

Look. With the repeated errors and repeated straw manning that you have been doing in this thread it appears nearly beyond reasonable doubt that you are trolling.

You’ve been corrected in many things but you immediately restate your position.

So, either you just aren’t cut out for debate or you are purposefully getting it wrong to get a rise out of the people here.

Is English your mother tongue? That could explain why you don’t appear to be able to understand what you are being told.

 

[Larniavc]

And yet the admins have done nothing about it. Ridiculous.

He needs to be reported first. And since people only tend to report things when there are emotionally affected (such as calling a certain figure a naughty word) it’s not really the admin’s fault.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I personally believe that this person is a non-Christian attempting to discredit creationists by being deliberately obtuse and offensive.

 

[Larniavc]

Can you tell us what species this "common ancestor" is?

As this has been answered several times I’ve reported you to the admins on this point for goading.

Have a nice day.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True in Euclidean geometry but not true under the theory of relativity.

Exactly.