Evolution is a Joke part XII

Project much? Actually, Evolution is pretty easy to understand if you just take the time. The fact that modern biology makes no sense outside of Evolution, pretty much says you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shocker.

 

I haven't seen all of the evidence for evolution. I don't think I'd have a hard time understanding most of anything that could be presented to me, though. And someone who has passed high school advanced biology should be able to get most of it, too. Fossils are easy enough (for people without a young-earth blind spot), if my schools' curricula up through sophomore year of HS is any indication. As long as you get replication, transcription, and translation, then all of the genetic evidence should be understandable. If you made it through algebra, then the population stuff is understandable. The only thing that takes me a bit to get through is the stuff that Wizard has brought up before: biogeography. Is there some other kind of evidence for evolution that you think is particularly tough to understand?

 

You didn't read my above post.
I know what I am talking about.
I know what they are saying/describing about how evolution works.
I just do not agree with them. They Cannot prove that what they are saying is absolutely true. They have a fossil of one creature which may or may not vanish, and then find another similar but more complex that lived at a later time and they speculate that it "evolved" from the first creature. There is no proof that this is what happened.
And there is no "mountain" of evidence. Fossils and bones lined up are only speculative evidence.
All this DNA research is in its infancy. You will see many technical advances in your lifetime. I wonder how long it will take them to admit that they were wrong about their theory of evolution.

 

Biogeography?
You have to understand that the face of the Earth was not always as it is today.
The fact that there are similar or even the same creatures living on opposite sides of the Earth is not an anomaly
.
The Earth not only changes slowly, as in the volcanic action along the Atlantic Ridge that is widening the Atlantic Ocean by 1 inch per 100 years, but in the past there have been sudden violent changes. And in case you are wondering --- no the Pacific Ocean is not narrowing by 1 inch a year.

 

I don't think the basic concepts are hard to understand, but the science behind each of these basic concepts is quite complicated. In school, they teach you by saying "this is how it is--take it at face value, and trust me, it's true because I'm your teacher and I say so." If you actually want to get to the core of each of these principles, it takes a much higher level of understanding, a level that no one here really comes close to. For example, do you have any idea how they found out that transcription or translation works the way it works? Not really. So you just have to trust the teacher and textbook.

That's how education works. The professional scientist comes up with a discovery. This discovery is unable to be comprehended by non-scientists, so it's dumbed down, put into a textbook, and taught to students. As a student, you just have to trust what you are taught is correct. And of course, everyone trusts it. But religious folk have a problem. Because they cannot process concepts that run contrary to their religious beliefs. And so they come up with reasons not to trust modern science. Most of them, when confronted with the fact that they don't understand the science, come up with pseudo-knowledge and hide behind that. The smarter ones realize that their psedo-knowledge can't possibly compare to that of professional scientists. So then their only option is to cite possible conspiracies amongst all modern scientists, etc, etc--all of which are pretty whimsical. But hey, these religious folk are pretty desperate--because can't really drop their deeply held beliefs. So they find whatever way, no matter how illogical, to justify them.

 

Ah, of course. We just need to wait for technology that does not exist and in fact may well never exist (it's not even clear what kind of detection you're talking about) to find any evidence for your assertions. Meanwhile, we should just accept them because... why?

 

Evolution is by far the best and most comprehensive explanation of the history of life on this planet. Unless those who wish to claim otherwise have an alternate theory that makes more sense they are either uninformed or agenda driven.

 

For the same reasons he accepts this :God" thingy...It's easier and yer brain don't hurt so much.

 

Actually, it's the electricity and chemistry that controls your mind. Your mind cannot control the electricity. Electricity works according to the laws nature--namely the principles of quantum physics. Your mind, no matter how powerful you think you are, cannot alter the laws of physics. If I give you an injection of propofol, for example, you WILL fall asleep. Your mind, no matter how hard it tries, cannot stay awake. Even if you have the most powerful mind in the world, you will not be able to stay awake. Because your mind is nothing more than the sum total of all the electrochemical reactions that occur in the brain. Nothing more, nothing less. And when I alter that electrochemistry, your mind will be altered 100% of the time. It does not happen the other way around.

 

What did Dr. Francis Crick think about Evolution...let's see.....

So much for attempting to use Dr. Francis Crick as someone who doesn't support Evolution or the Theory of Evolution....AND this highlights why you are dishonest.

 

not being a scientist, you have no way to make that assertion.

 

And you completely delusional, not too mention, dishonest. Fell free to cling to you baseless, fact-less belief in a mythical sky fairy and leave the heavy lifting to those who can do it.

 

It's great to understand the fundamentals. But that understanding does not allow you to intelligently debate complex concepts with regard to evolution, as people on this forum consistently attempt to do. So unless you really know what you are talking about (any no one here really does), then debating complex scientific topics is a waste of time.

 

Yep. Our "receiver" tends to be very fragile and can very easily develop serious problems, whether we're talking about insomnia and sleep deprivation, hallucinations or full-on insanity. As with the rest of the body, the brain is susceptible to a very wide range of ailments. Non-fatal brain damage can also lead to some pretty interesting mental phenomena, including major changes in personality.

Of course, to pre-scientific peoples who lacked any proper understanding of the brain, such things were likely interpreted as the workings of "spirits" of some sort. Pre-scientific peoples also thought that wind was "spirit," which is still apparent in many languages, as the words for air and spirit are often the same. The bible contains such thought as well, of course, when its writers speak of "the breath of life" and such.

I bring all of this up to make this point: We are in a period of transition from a primitive worldview to a new science-based one. Christianity is through and through a part of the older worldview, which of course has modern believers scrambling to reinterpret the bible in ways that make it seem true and relevant within the new science-based wordview. This nonsense about the brain being a receiver for the soul is, I feel, a part of this. As science unravels the mysteries of the mind and the brain, those who are determined to continue believing in the older wordview's assertions and promises relating to deities, spirits and life after death are forced to try and reconcile these increasingly divergent views of who and what we are as human beings. Science simply does not support those old assertions. Same thing with evolution vs creationism & I.D., of course. I.D. is attempting to marry creationism with the modern scientific understanding of the evolution of the universe, the solar system, the earth and terrestrial life.

It's a spectacle to behold, really. A sad one, perhaps, but a spectacle none the less.

 

Knowing every minute detail about how we got to where we are isn't necessary for understanding evidence, though. That's what you originally said, that one has to be an expert in the field to understand the evidence. Sure, you trust that the scientific progress up to a point was accurate. That doesn't mean "just trust[ing] the teacher and the textbook," though. I know there are crappy teachers who discourage questions, but mine always welcomed them. When they couldn't answer challenges themselves, they were happy to point to resources that did have the answers and supporting evidence. So you end up trusting that the scientists who developed our understanding of genetic processes knew what they were doing and properly understood and reported the results. I still don't think there's an actual barrier to understanding this stuff for people who are sufficiently motivated and not blinded by their own prejudices.

I agree with the second part of your post, generally, about religious opposition to science.

 

Sure, and when I get the last of the bricks made, I'll have made significant progress towards the building of my castle in the sky.

There is nothing in that statement that lends itself to understanding, seeing it implies the existence of a reference frame which has no discernible connection to observed reality.

From the article: "...most evolutionary biologists hold that [] viruses are not alive..."; and since they apparently reject the continuum you imply between life and non-life, I suppose I can only assume they don't count as scientists as far as you're concerned.

More to the point, irrespective of its truth value, it has no bearing on anything I said.

 

as i said, knowing the basics is all good, but eventually, everything comes down to the details. For example, you may know that genes evolve. But do you have any idea how they evolve? I certainly don't. It's actually quite complicated and I once had some idea, but have since wiped it from my memory. But it's not important. I know that genes evolve cause scientists tell me that they do. And that's enough for me.

 

And it is a difficult situation. We are taught the Christian God exists in the past present and future at the same time. So to debate evolution or cosmology we are doing it with only half the answer. It may well be evolution is God's way of doing things. But unless we really know what the final expected outcome is how can we say with any assurance we know. Humans assume we are the high point of creation, but really other than our own opinion, what evidence do we have to support that.

 

To Durandal

---Quote (Originally by OhZone)---
You have that backwards. It is the mind/consciousness that directs the electricity.
The Mind is not in the brain. The brain is just the receiver.
Evidence that it continues....you are using finite hardware to attempt to detect it.
You have to develop better more sensitive hardware.
---End Quote---
Ah, of course. We just need to wait for technology that does not exist and in fact may well never exist (it's not even clear what kind of detection you're talking about) to find any evidence for your assertions. Meanwhile, we should just accept them because... why?
--------
See this link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/intrusive-brain-reading-surveillance-technology-hacking-the-mind/7606
---------------------------------------------------------
To: godisnotreal
The mind is a receiver, it uses the brain therefore controls what goes on there.
Of course drugs will put it to sleep, same as a hammer will put your radio to sleep.

Maybe you can tell me where any scientist can state emphatically just exactly how one life form evolved into another. The throw this term “mutation” around very loosely. This is puzzling considering that they know full well that mutations just don’t work that way. Mutations are the result of degradation or damage to part of the DNA. There are mutations appearing every day here and now. Most of them make life miserable for the creature born with them. Lucky the ones that die.
----------------------------------------------
To LogicallyYours
My reference to F. Crick was as to his statement that life could not have begun on this planet.
How does this make me dishonest?
I fail to see how your statement correlates to mine. I’m delusional in my description of evolution?
You are mistaken, I have no mythical sky fairy. It is easier to believe in ET.
Maybe you should read my posts more closely.

 

Maybe you can tell me where any scientist can state emphatically just exactly how one life form evolved into another. The throw this term “mutation” around very loosely. This is puzzling considering that they know full well that mutations just don’t work that way. Mutations are the result of degradation or damage to part of the DNA. There are mutations appearing every day here and now. Most of them make life miserable for the creature born with them. Lucky the ones that die.
----------------------------------------------
To LogicallyYours

You attempted to use Crick to support your contention that prominent a scientist don't acknowledge or agree with Evolution. You're wrong and now you're attempting a side-step.

Evolution describes how the different species on this planet evolved...that's it. Evolution does address ABIOGENESIS. Please learn the difference!

 

It's called Speciation and it's well documented. Second, you have no idea how mutations work. Mutations are a permanent, heritable change in the nucleotide sequence in a gene or a chromosome, period. They do not denote a negative change to the sequence. They are simply a change.

Complet BULSH! This is why I call you dishonest. All this information is available, from reputable ( orgs, edu...) sources...but yet you lack desire to actually learn what you're posting about.

 

The question is: does the brain control the mind or does the mind control the brain?

If the brain controls the mind, then by manipulating the brain, you should be able to change the mind, and this is the case, as we can see with drugs and other medical phenomena. If the mind controls the brain, then I should not be able to manipulate the mind by manipulating the brain. So you have it backwards.

Modern scientists know that life evolved from one form to another. Just how they came to this conclusion is complicated, and is beyond your understanding and mine. You either have to trust the scientists or you don't. And if you don't, then you should be branded as a witch and stoned to death, as they did in the Bible.

But consider - not all mutations are bad...if you pick only the good ones, then maybe you can create a better lifeform.

 

Fundies believe Scientist are all lying as some sort of huge, organized anti-god conspiracy. Well if that's that case, what would be the reason?

Money?

I don't think so.

Fame?

Any Scientist who could disprove Evolution or the theory of Evolution would automatically win the Noble Peace Prize for their work. Period. Any Journalist who could document a conspiracy would win a Pulitzer Prize. Period.

Nope, that's not it.

God Haters?

Many Biologists, Cosmologists and alike, ARE Christians. So..........????


...What is their motivation???...Why are they all lying???

 

Right.
My point was that Science postulates that everything has a Cause, and no Effect can be supernatural, magic, even if we at the moment we do not know the Cause.

I also have explained that Science, using the Copenhagen Interpretation as foundation for saying nothing exists until it has been observed.
Applying this Science to the initial Big Bang moment, requires an OBSERVER who was present before there was a Universe.

Hence, Scientific proof use the Copenhagen Interpretation explains the First Cause.

These same people here have bashed and complained that Creationists are hard headed in the face of science facts are trying to skirt around this Science by ignoring Copenhagen, and changing the discussion to Schrodingers Cat and Many Worlds ideas that have nothing to do Copenhagen.

They demonstrate their hypocrisy once science shows they are wrong.

 

Its just human nature.

Look at Logically yours.
He refuses to accept the Copenhagen Interpretation which is used to prove a Observer existed who created the Universe just be observing.


He goes to great lengths to cloud the simply application of the interpretation and deny it does prove god on the turf of Science itself.