Evolution is BS and based on guesses

Post Reply New Topic

And yet no one can explain why ? How is the scientific research labeled on National Science Foundation, Journal of Current Biology, and Science Daily as "deterministic evolution", not deterministic evolution?

the research states right on page 1935 that ...
We thus conclude that for much or most of the variation that has been described as "developmental system drift" predominately evolutionary bias was observed.

On biology forums it was stated that the issue is contentious among biology researchers whether evolution is deterministic or not. What confounds these researchers appears to be well known facts to WP members.



I never made the claim that this happened, rather I was told it was nonsense with no explanation, so this quote would not apply.



Sure, however, absence of evidence does mean "nonsense" does it ?



No need to accept sure. However, no basis to denigrate it as nonsense either or is there ? Do you support denigration of ideas when someone is absent of evidence?



"Conclusiveness" applies to deductive proofs , and evolution of "connecting the dots" is guesswork, and assumptions so it would be an inductive proof. Per the wikipedia definition for inductive proof, it is not conclusive, but reasonable.

We evolved from apes and have evidence of it there is no evidence that we were made of mud or from ribs. Also how can there be light before God Created the sun and the stars?

I want to drop off this discussion. However, I found perhaps as a good ending reference ...

"Thus, we are still at a philosophical impasse concerning the question of the determinism or indeterminism of evolution" [see source]
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4544/1/ ... ticism.pdf

So, let's all agree that no one knows, and evolutionary theory does not know, and Prometheus premise of deterministic evolution is possible, well ... at least the first two right?, OK friends. Bye Feel free to hammer me if desired.

I am not religious so I don't know about the evidentiary implication of mud and rib bones.

Theories arent about pure imagination. You have to make some predictions of what you should find and locate the evidence. Extraterrestrial origin isn't taken seriously today because evidence is lacking. Scientists arent being mean. Also, deterministic evolution doesn't mean what you think it means.

You also have to explain the long period of time without humans. Directed evolution could have put us on Earth much sooner. Humans have barely existed at all compared to the 4 billion years of life here. And a series of mass extinctions are likely as responsible as any biological process. Evolution isnt just the genes. It's also the changes in the environment that selects winners and losers. The environment has changed through very complex processes that don't appear to be directed. Certainly an engineered human could have been created more efficiently.

Then you have the innate messiness. Ive had my DNA tested and it contains ~2% neanderthal and ~1% Denisovan dna markers. Evolution provides a framework to explain this that involves genetic isolation followed by renewed contact and mixing. The process is very chaotic. We can imagine invisible hands guiding everything but without evidence it looks like changes in some variables could have led to another outcome. I also think that the idea that mankind is guaranteed existence or protected is somewhat dangerous.

You did find a good ending reference. It shows to me that the problem here is actually a semantic one. You are assuming that the terms "deterministic", "biased" and "directional" all imply that an outside intelligent force was a necessary cause of the direction/bias. That an intelligent force set biology on a pre-determined path. But that's not what determinism means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism


Determinism gives the sense of inevitability- that things go in a certain direction because the physical laws of the universe steer them that way. But you are assuming that intelligent conscious control is the only possible pre-condition; that if there is a direction, there must be a director. So whenever the term "evolutionary determinism" appears in a scientific work, you think the researchers are admitting that an intelligent force determined the course of evolution. But that's not what they are saying at all. They are simply saying that certain forces steer certain actions (giving them bias/direction). But these forces are not intelligent. Consider the property of "emergence" which Tallyman has posted about before. It shows us that the laws of physics make order come out of disorder. But this does not imply an intelligent director making it all happen.

I am pretty sure that when you saw the term "agnostic" in that PDF, you assumed that the writers were saying that discoveries about deterministic evolution meant that God was a possibility that should not be dismissed in science. But if you read the PDF, they weren't saying that at all. You are obviously familiar with religious agnosticism- remaining undecided on whether or not there is a God. But your semantic error is in thinking that is the entire definition of agnosticism.



God/not God is just one area where a person can be agnostic. As per the definition, it need not have anything to do with God. And in the PDF, it doesn't. The writers are simply saying that currently there is no way of knowing how much of evolution is deterministic (which means destined to go down a certain path but does not mean an intelligent force created the path). Being agnostic about that (if you read the PDF) means that it isn't currently possible to know. Religious agnosticism is not implied. But you assumed it was. This is a semantic error.

GAWD! You dont even understand your own point!

Whether Promethius is believable or not is not the issue. According to you Scientists are all practicing a blind faith religion because... they dont like your favorite movie...or something (because of SOME reason that is opaque to normal humans).

Anyhow- the issue you're raising is that acientists are practicing blind faith- and this movie somehow proves it. But you dont actually follow through and explain HOW this movies proves that. Promethius is "believeable" in the same way Avatar is believable. There could be a planet out there in another solar system inhabited by a civilization of blue people, or whatever they are, but there is no scientific evidence for such a place yet. The fact that scientists dont operate under the assumption that Avatar is true does not make scientists the Spanish Inquisition. Same with the movie Prometheus.

The famous atheist Richard Dawkins once wrote that if you ever meet anyone who denies the fact of evolution, it is safe to say that person is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Ignorance is by far the most common cause mainly because of so much misinformation and BS being published out there for gullible morons to find. It is also quite likely that many people are not smart enough to understand the actual evidence (not the BS and lies put out by young earth creationists, alien conspiracy nuts, etc.) even if they do find it. And it is certain (no doubt in my mind) that many people are batshit crazy either from religious brainwashing, medical reasons, or a psychological need to believe in alien conspiracies or whatnot. Finally some wicked people may really know that evolution is a fact, but because there are so many gullible morons out there willing to buy videos and books that tell them otherwise, those wicked people are more than happy to lie to the public in order to make money from those gullible morons.

I don't agree with the militant atheism of Dawkins. I think he is rude and arrogant and presumes too much (for me agnosticism is a more honest viewpoint). But when he said what he said about the possible categories of people who deny the fact of evolution, he nailed it so far as I can tell. I have never encountered nor have I even heard of anyone denying evolution who does not fit into at least one of these categories. Of course combinations are possible: ignorant and stupid, stupid and insane, etc.

I have mentioned this quote to some people and some of them became quite offended. One lady from the okcupid dating site who had been talking to me for a few days got quite upset when I said this in a phone call to her. She said, "I am none of those things." I said, "Sorry, but you are." And that was the end of my relationship with that woman.

Finally I must repeat that I am not slamming creationism, i.e., the idea or belief that the universe and us had a Creator. I am not even slamming the idea or belief that it is the Christian or Muslim God that did this. All I'm saying is that ALL the evidence of the physical world yet found ALL points to evolution being an observable testable fact of nature and the means by which life developed and diversified on this planet regardless of whatever caused the universe or life to begin in the first place. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (or some combination of those traits). That is not being insulting to anyone, just making an accurate and honest description of some human behaviors.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 02 Aug 2014, 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Richard Dawkins is an agnostic.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4[/youtube]

Cool. I am glad Dawkins has the honesty to admit he is not sure whether or not there is a God. Of course he would say that the God of the Biblical literalists either doesn't exist or is a prankster to plant so much evidence. I have usually heard him referred to as an atheist. I stand corrected. Show me EVIDENCE I am wrong about ANYTHING and I will admit I am wrong (as long as the evidence is valid enough to convince me). I have met many people in discussions of this subject who are unwilling to consider or even look at the actual evidence.

I would have a LOT more respect for young earth creationists if, instead of ignoring, denying or distorting the evidence, they would admit that all the evidence points to a young earth and biological evolution but they choose to believe otherwise because of religious reasons. Now THAT would be a strong sign of FAITH. I only speak out because these well-meaning but badly misinformed people keep trying to sabotage the science education of American public schools, dumbing down everybody else's children besides their own.

What they do to their own children constitutes child abuse so far as I am concerned, but not badly enough for me to speak out about it because of the issue of religious freedom (the freedom to believe whatever batshit crazy ideas you want to believe). But when they try to push their insanity, FORCE their insanity onto everyone, that's when they have gone too far and I feel I have to speak out for the good of our country, our species and our planet.

Exactly. I read most of the actual study and nowhere do they define deterministic to mean evolution as a whole is deterministic, read the the final paragraph carefully
"If the patterns that we observed in the vulva system are found more generally, then most of develop-mental system drift is driven by deterministic and not stochastic processes"

They most certainly are not using the term to say that Evolution is deterministic, they are instead suggesting that once a form has evolved changes are driven by laws governed by the structure itself, in this case the vulva of slightly diverged roundworms, this is not the same as saying all of evolution is driven by a set of laws. You should also note that this is ONE study that has not yet been replicated, let alone tried in other in different Taxa.

So yes your premise that aliens started life still has no evidence, and the most parsimonious hypothesis is the highly improbable random coming together of molecules under ideal conditions. But remember when I say highly improbable we are also using it in context of literally astronomical numbers of opportunities for the event to occur. And just to be clear science does not say life was created this way, given what we know the best hypothesis SUGGESTS it.

But thanks for finding an interesting article.

I think most atheists are also agnostics. They go about their life as if there is no God (atheist), but they don't claim 100% certainty (agnostic). Richard Dawkins once said that on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is certainty there is a God, and 7 is the certainty that there is no God, he would "only" be a 6.9.
I think most people are agnostic in the end, even when they lean overwhelmingly to one side.

You made a directed comment on the other thread about this to me, so we should put my part in this thread to bed. I only cited it because of the accusation that deterministic evolution is "nonsense".

I agree with everything you said here. The research states that the changes are not "purely stochastic" so like you said it is not entirely driven by determinism. However, I never claimed it was. I never claimed 99% of the things people assert I claimed. I don't think I ever claimed anything actually. I just defended that it was not "nonsense".

I pointed out that science has a "life-created-by-aliens" hypothesis, and we see research into deterministic evolution. Combining those references then I think "nonsense" is overreaching. It got muddled because I responded to many people that pursued different angles of inquiry and the insults from everyone did not help. But hopefully everyone had fun.

LNH you are misunderstanding the use of deterministic as being fundamentally causal, In this case it is clear (at least to my understanding) that the research has nothing to do with the possibility that evolution has a primary causal direction, it instead is suggesting that once a particular path has been followed by evolutionary biology then localized natural laws may come into play.

From my reading of this research, it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Prometheus hypothesis". And therefore you still have not provided a single. solitary piece of supporting evidence.

*sigh*

"The misunderstanding" is not that. The "misunderstanding" is that prior I spent time on a biology site that discussed Prometheus , where it was stated that deterministic evolution was contentious among researchers, so what a surprise I find WP members claim it is "nonsense", and throw in insults for too boot for suggesting such "nonsense". What is it that WP members know that researchers do not ? Well, they sure aren't telling. None of the detractors would substantiate why deterministic evolution is "nonsense".

Forget the tunnel vision of nitpicking, and nitpicking, either one has knowledge of deterministic evolution, or not. My perspective is that most or all the people here know very little about it - even the ones who think they know something about evolutionary theory. The last document I posted would seem to be a big underscore of that. How can it be nonsense in view of the last document posted ?

The nitpicking is absurd, as I stated several times, the research was just showing evidence that the concept was known not to be
nonsense, which of course it appears to do. I stated the research might be "junk science" and totally bogus. So who cares if it makes any sense. I did not use it that way. Call the research witchcraft if you want, but at least answer the fundamental question. Don't nitpick triviality. People are trying to argue trivialities of "it is not the same thing" , and they miss the whole picture that it is the concept that I cited the research for.

What in your experience with microbiology makes you believe that you know something that is contentious among researchers, and you know it so well that anything challenging your view must be nonsense? Will you be the first to substantiate why it is nonsense ?

Determinstic evolution is the whole point of Prometheus (as I stated in my second post on this thread when questioned - that the only difference is the deterministic aspect of evolution - 'pre-determined evolution'). This is why it is pointed out that humans ultimately end up looking like xenomorphs (i.e., evolution was not purely random).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fJaxBT52u0[/youtube]Muahahahhahahha!! !! Eat that Creationists!! A living transitional species a fish that cannot breath water but walks on land.

For pities sake, and for the last time, you are misreading the conclusion, nothing in that study suggests what you think it does.

I ask you this, if a reputable study was published which showed evolution to be fundamentally causal, that showed it had purposeful direction, and demonstrated that there was indeed evidence for a creationist hypothesis. Are you really suggesting that this news would gradually filter out of sci fi forums!! !! It would be breaking news world wide, we would all be hearing about it, church bells would be ringing, mullahs would be calling the faithful to prayer, but no, it is you and a handful of the faithful that are burdened with the task of informing the masses.

You claim to have knowledge of something that from several hours of searching on the internet would appear to not exist, your only evidence is not evidence at all, give it up, you are making yourself look extremely foolish