Evolution is BS and based on guesses

Page 6 of 11 [ 172 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

01 Aug 2014, 4:22 am

trollcatman wrote:

I'm probably wasting my time but here is a wikipedia article about evidence for common descent. Just by looking at the table of contents you see that the amount of evidence is huge, and comes from many different angles. DNA, fossils, geographical distribution of species, observed speciation, comparative anatomy, vestigial organs, the merged chromosome in humans vs other great apes, endogenous retroviruses, the list is enormous. To not believe in common descent requires someone to believe in one of the biggest conspiracy theories ever: either all the scientists are frauds and fooling the whole world, or some Creator made it look as if evolution happened to fool us.
This last aspect is just like the Church of Last Thursdayism: the world was created last thursday with us in it, and we were given fake memories to make it look as if the world was older than Last Thursday.
Anyway, here's the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_f ... on_descent

Furthermore, an interesting study was actually done in 2010 in order to test the statistical likelihood of life having the same origin (universal common ancestry - UCA) or multiple origins. It is also mentioned in the wiki link above.

I think the results speak for themselves:

Theobald (2010) wrote:

Therefore, UCA is at least 10^2,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis. Notably, UCA is the most accurate and the most parsimonious hypothesis.
Compared to the multiple-ancestry hypotheses, UCA provides a much better fit to the data (as seen from its higher likelihood), and it is also the least complex (as judged by the number of parameters).

Theobald, D. L. (2010). A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature, 465(7295), 219-222.

theobald.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Theobald_2010_Nature_all.pdf (page 220)

Needless to say, 10^2,860 is a fairly large number.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

01 Aug 2014, 4:42 am

TallyMan wrote:

Where did you pull those stupid figures from, cos they reek of BS and ignorance.

I was asked my personal opinion, so those numbers are exemplary of my personal opinion.

TallyMan wrote:

Did you actually ever study any science?

Science says the primordial ooze randomly caused life. Where is the proof to that ? Are scientists making this stuff up ? I think non-randomness (determination) is more reasonable than randomness from a probability perspective.

How is the premise of Prometheus wrong in its view that the primordial ooze (black goo + zenomorph) contained genetic information that pre-detetermined human life (as I mentioned much earlier in the thread) ? You have proof that the original primordial ooze never contained any genetic information that deterministically would result in human life ?

It appears it is evolutionary science that "reeks of ignorance", and closes people's minds, whereas my mind is open. I think you won't be able to show any proof whatsoever to back the imagined claims of science, so why is evolutionary science's made up story of randomness of life - better than the bible or science fiction ?

My cursory overview of "evolutionary science" makes me think at best they have an inductive argument, and the rest is a story they tell to fill in the blanks.

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 01 Aug 2014, 5:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Aug 2014, 5:02 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

Where did you pull those stupid figures from, cos they reek of BS and ignorance.

I was asked my personal opinion, so those numbers are exemplary of my personal opinion.

TallyMan wrote:

Did you actually ever study any science?

Science says the primordial ooze randomly caused life. Where is the proof to that ? Are scientists making this stuff up ?

How is the premise of Prometheus wrong in its view that the primordial ooze (black goo + zenomorph) contained genetic information that pre-detetermined human life ?

I think it is the science that "reeks of ignorance", and closes people's minds. I think you won't be able to show any proof whatsoever to back the imagined claims of science. Why is science made up story better than the bible or science fiction ?

I think non-randomness (determination) is more reasonable than randomness from a probability perspective, however, that is a different discussion.

FOR f***s SAKE, when are you lot going to learn that EVOLUTION has absolutely f**k ALL TO DO WITH THE FORMATION OF LIFE. Instead it refers to what happens after life is formed. For pities sake if you cannot grasp the concept of evolution at least understand it basic bloody premise.

You keep claiming to be able to think, I am yet to be convinced. Scientists "making things up" is called conjecture and hypothesis, these are based upon what we already know and are designed to fit the problem as neatly as possible, see Occams Razor. It does not make them right but it is a "best guess", its a start, it's a way to decide where and how to look. . Theories are hypotheses which have been shown to be correct when tested against nature, they are the furthest f*****g thing from "the imagined claims of science".

If you think science is so errant, may I suggest you turn off your computer by removing the main fuse to your house and sit in the dark until you learn how to make fire, as you are not deserving of the marvelous technologies brought to you since the advent of the scientific method.

Oh and one last thing, EVOLUTION IS NOT A RANDOM PROCESS. So home work for tonight kiddies is to try and understand that !. Evolution does not describe how life was formed, and 2. Evolution is not a game of random chance

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

01 Aug 2014, 5:11 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

No.

"Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life

DentArthurDent wrote:

You keep claiming to be able to think, I suspect the average tadpole thinks clearer than you. Scientists "making things up" is called conjecture and hypothesis, these are based upon what we already know and are designed to fit the problem as neatly as possible, see Occams Razor. It does not make them right but it is the best guess, its a start, it's a way to decide where and how to look. . Theories are hypotheses which have been shown to be correct when tested against nature, they are the furthest f*****g thing from "the imagined claims of science".

Look at your arrogance, you insult me, and you don't even read the wiki page for evolution, and you think you know something about the origins of life. Sad.

DentArthurDent wrote:

If you think science is so errant, may I suggest you turn off your computer by removing the main fuse to your house and sit in the dark until you learn how to make fire, as you are not deserving of the marvelous technologies brought to you since the advent of the scientific method.

You cannot answer the basic questions I posed above?

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 01 Aug 2014, 5:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

01 Aug 2014, 5:16 am

^ I'm done wasting any more time on you. If you really want to learn about evolution you'll do it. In the mean time I'll leave you to your delusions and ignorance. I'm out of this thread. Bye.

_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

01 Aug 2014, 5:21 am

TallyMan wrote:

^ I'm done wasting any more time on you. If you really want to learn about evolution you'll do it. In the mean time I'll leave you to your delusions and ignorance. I'm out of this thread. Bye.

You know I am right, so all you can do is insult me.

I am surprised ASD people would use this tactic in argument.

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

01 Aug 2014, 5:26 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

^ I'm done wasting any more time on you. If you really want to learn about evolution you'll do it. In the mean time I'll leave you to your delusions and ignorance. I'm out of this thread. Bye.

You know I am right, so all you can do is insult me.

I am surprised ASD people would use this tactic in argument.

It isn't a tactic, I'm just sick of reading and responding to your BS. Maybe your are right, maybe ET shoved his glowing finger up your ass and you are the next evolutionary leap forward! :lol:

Anyway, I've better things to do with my time...

_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

01 Aug 2014, 5:37 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

"Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life

Abiogenesis is an interesting topic. In case you haven't seen this talk and the corresponding article:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unNRCSj0igI[/youtube]
http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews ... 88_en.html

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

01 Aug 2014, 6:00 am

Well, to wrap up the mystery of the Prometheus premise, it looks like pre-determined evolution does not contradict scientific theory.

"There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

So, according to the above, science is open to the belief that humans may exist today deterministically from the primordial ooze, and the creation of life is not random (i.e., consistent with the Prometheus premise).

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

01 Aug 2014, 6:07 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

But you admitted that "evolution is the only thing supported by the facts". So how is it arrogant to dismiss it. You admit there is no reason to consider it. So why should scientists consider it?

I don't dismiss it.

Perhaps ....

50% chance life evolved based on science theory
25% chance based on religious creationism
10% chance of alien GODs
15% chance of alternate theories

I have an open mind. Would you bet your life that evolution theory is right? I wouldn't. "Evolution theory" may be vastly different in a hundred years. Scientists in the future will say, "it was foolish but scientists a 100 years ago actually believed ....".

First of all: who says scientist dismiss the idea of alien's seeding life? They consider it-but find it wanting -for a number of obvious reasons for starters (aliens are an unknown, and if they exist- then how did THEY originate? From evolution? From OTHER aliens? And why would aliens start a project that would take four billion years to complete? and- there is the little problem of :there isnt a shred of evidence to support this alien preprograming idea).

Second - so you're saying that if I refuse to entertain the idea that the Moon is made of cotten candy -and that smurfs are at work faking the evidence to make it appear to be made of rock- then my refusal to entertain the idea is an act of religious faith? Isnt that backwards? Wouldnt believing in this smurf theory (against all evidence- just like your demand that scientist take the premise of that movie seriously-which would be against all evidence) be faith of a religious type?

And in those numbers above - you're admittting that evolution has by far the most evidence supporting it. So if you essentially accept evolution why do you fault scientists for accepting it?

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

01 Aug 2014, 6:36 am

naturalplastic wrote:

First of all: who says scientist dismiss the idea of alien's seeding life? They consider it-but find it wanting .

My original post of the Prometheus premise was attacked as "ridiculous".

However, I find this ..

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123929.htm

naturalplastic wrote:

-for a number of obvious reasons for starters (aliens are an unknown, and if they exist- then how did THEY originate? From evolution? From OTHER aliens? And why would aliens start a project that would take four billion years to complete? and- there is the little problem of :there isnt a shred of evidence to support this alien preprograming idea)

There is no way to know our creator's intention. We have to watch Prometheus 2 to find out

naturalplastic wrote:

Second - so you're saying that if I refuse to entertain the idea that the Moon is made of cotten candy -and that smurfs are at work faking the evidence to make it appear to be made of rock- then my refusal to entertain the idea is an act of religious faith? Isnt that backwards?

I accept I don't know what the Moon is made of, though, I doubt it is made of cotton candy. I never said anyone "is faking evidence". Not sure where you are going with this. I am not saying what you should believe. I only commented about the premise of Prometheus of "engineer" aliens and their deterministic evolution.

naturalplastic wrote:

Wouldnt believing in this smurf theory (against all evidence- just like your demand that scientist take the premise of that movie seriously-which would be against all evidence) be faith of a religious type?

I don't demand anyone take it seriously. The premise was attacked, so I participated in finding out why, since no clear reasoning was provided.

naturalplastic wrote:

And in those numbers above - you're admittting that evolution has by far the most evidence supporting it. So if you essentially accept evolution why do you fault scientists for accepting it?

As I stated much earlier, on the second post, the premise of Prometheus is evolution. It is just pre-determined evolution. Through the whole thread, people said it was wrong, but no reasoning was put forth.

And now we see this ...

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123929.htm

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

01 Aug 2014, 6:51 am

Where I am "going with this" is trying to pin down where you are going with your nonsense. Your hollywood theory is like my cotten candy theory-defies all evidence. But you demand folks take it seriously against that evidence- which means you are engaged in religous faith. Not the folks who dismiss your idea (which you yourself ALSO dismiss-but you fault other for dismissing it).

The fact that aliens are not known to exist, and if they were to exist that would be unlikely to launch into a project that takes four billion years to complete makes the idea doubly unlikely. The fact that it is unlikely is why scientists dont adhere to the theory. Whether we can know their intent or not is irrelevent. Given present knowledge-there is no reason to adhere to your theory (which you yourself dont take seriously either).

A hundred years from now Russell Crowe (or whoever the star of this special effects thriller is)may replace darwin-you may be right.
But thats irrelevent. Whats relevent is what we know now about how the universe works. From present evidence- there is no evidence of this hollywood theory of yours (none even in your round worm article). So it takes faith to entertain your Promotheius idea. And it does not take faith to not take an interest in it.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 01 Aug 2014, 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

01 Aug 2014, 7:04 am

naturalplastic wrote:

Where I am "going with this" is trying to pin down where you are going with your nonsense. Your hollywood theory is like my cotten candy theory-defies all evidence.

Did you read the scientific research I cited above? You think those scientists and their research are nonsense ?

Their research shows the premise of Prometheus that evolution is deterministic.

naturalplastic wrote:

But you demand folks take it seriously against that evidence- which means you are engaged in religous faith. Not the folks who dismiss your idea (which you yourself ALSO dismiss-but you fault other for dismissing it)

I never demanded anything. I asked penetrating questions, so penetrating that people had to resort to insults.

naturalplastic wrote:

The fact that it is unlikely is why scientists dont adhere to the theory. Whether we can know their intent or not is irrelevent. Given present knowledge-there is no reason to adhere to your theory (which you yourself dont take seriously either). Its not for everyone else on the thread to find faults with your theory. Its for you to find evidence to argue FOR it. You steadfastly refuse to do that. And indeed even admit to finding it unlikely yourself.

Science has a hypothesis that life on Earth originated from "extraterrestrial life". It is called "Panspermia".

"... the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planetoids, and also by spacecraft, in the form of unintended contamination by microbes".

source,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

01 Aug 2014, 7:13 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

Science has a hypothesis that life on Earth originated from "extraterrestrial life". It is called "Panspermia".

You might find this of interest:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/42 ... restrials/

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

01 Aug 2014, 7:26 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

Oh, for the love of Nod. :roll:

From the abstract of the *actual* study:

Kiontke et al. wrote:

BACKGROUND: A surprising amount of developmental variation has been observed for otherwise highly conserved features, a phenomenon known as developmental system drift. Either stochastic processes (e.g., drift and absence of selection-independent constraints) or deterministic processes (e.g., selection or constraints) could be the predominate mechanism for the evolution of such variation. We tested whether evolutionary patterns of change were unbiased or biased, as predicted by the stochastic or deterministic hypotheses, respectively. As a model, we used the nematode vulva, a highly conserved, essential organ, the development of which has been intensively studied in the model systems Caenorhabditis elegans and Pristionchus pacificus.

RESULTS: For 51 rhabditid species, we analyzed more than 40 characteristics of vulva development, including cell fates, fate induction, cell competence, division patterns, morphogenesis, and related aspects of gonad development. We then defined individual characters and plotted their evolution on a phylogeny inferred for 65 species from three nuclear gene sequences. This taxon-dense phylogeny provides for the first time a highly resolved picture of rhabditid evolution and allows the reconstruction of the number and directionality of changes in the vulva development characters. We found an astonishing amount of variation and an even larger number of evolutionary changes, suggesting a high degree of homoplasy (convergences and reversals). Surprisingly, only two characters showed unbiased evolution. Evolution of all other characters was biased.

CONCLUSIONS: We propose that developmental evolution is primarily governed by selection and/or selection-independent constraints, not stochastic processes such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space.

Kiontke, K., Barrière, A., Kolotuev, I., Podbilewicz, B., Sommer, R., Fitch, D. H., & Félix, M. A. (2007). Trends, stasis, and drift in the evolution of nematode vulva development. Current Biology, 17(22), 1925-1937.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf ... 2193-8.pdf

This study has absolutely *nothing* to do with the Prometheus claim you keep pushing...

And after 7 pages, this thread has only managed to evolve from "Evolution is false because [Insert religious text here] says so" to "Evolution is false because [Insert Hollywood movie here] says so".

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

01 Aug 2014, 7:48 am

GGPViper wrote:

This study has absolutely *nothing* to do with the Prometheus claim you keep pushing...

I am not "pushing" anything. I keep getting asked questions, and pointing out that Prometheus is not inconsistent with science theory that has been presented so far. Others think so, however, apparently.

GGPViper wrote:

This study has absolutely *nothing* to do with the Prometheus claim you keep pushing...

I am not a biologist. This does not show cellular deterministic evolution as stated in the headlines on many of the science websites ? It appears what you highlighted does come to the conclusion of cellular determinism. I am sure you realize that "stochastic processes" are random, and so the alternate observation is determinism.

primarily governed by selection and/or selection-independent constraints --> appears to be determinism ?
not stochastic processes such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space ---> randomness ?

Genetic determinism is the premise of Prometheus.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 01 Aug 2014, 8:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

Page 6 of 11 [ 172 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11 Next

Jump to:

Evolution is BS and based on guesses Post Reply New Topic

Evolution is BS and based on guesses