Some things I don't get about evolution...

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by Brokenman123, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. One Mic

    One Mic Fapstronaut

    Yes, you can.

    The problem when it comes to any of these "sciences" is that people, like yourself, believe that it requires extremely honed minds, huge sources of data, and big, well-funded labratories to discover whether this was real or not. However, all it takes is just a sprinkle of critical thought, some basic knowledge of evolution, and some listening into both sides of the topic. All that's left to do is to just follow the evidence. And it says it's not real and that evolution is based more in the realm of religion than it is science.

    I know, I used religion to describe evolution. Confusing, ain't it? I'll get into that in a bit. :p

    You tell me you see no reason to not trust these scientists, but you don't tell me why. I told you that listening and blindly following other individuals you BELIEVE know more about the origins of humanity is no different than a Christian believing whatever his priest says about what God is. We can't be naive to think that every single individual that studies evolution is a person that follows the evidence and only the evidence. If they did, then most individuals in the scientific community would say it does not exist.

    In other words, you're committing dogma by trusting scientists to tell you what the world is like. You believe that painstaking and thorough research is taking place at all, no differently than how a person believes his priest has a connection with God.

    Then why the hell would anyone "believe" (I notice a lot of people are saying they believe in evolution. Which is something a religious person would say) in evolution when you yourself have just stated to me that the "theory", NOT A FACT, is still completely possible to being absolutely rejected? Why would you risk being completely mislead?

    I mean, damn, you're better off accepting evolution as a possible explanation, not THE explanation. Not that you stated you did, this is just a more general statement.

    Nobody does. This is just a possible explanation. I could tell you right now that I'm not really a person, I'm actually a cyclops baby with fairy wings, lollipops sticking out of my ass, and I eat diapers every year on Easter because it's my own way of celebrating Ishtar. You don't know why I'm lying, but because what I said is so absurd, you'd know I am lying.

    Despite that, I'll put this aside for now. I want to show you that evolution does NOT exist, not why it's presented to us as fact in the first place.

    It doesn't take painstaking effort to look into evolution. And I don't deserve a Nobel prize for debunking something that never existed to begin with. I'm not even the first to debunk it. Nor did I debunk it at all. I just followed the evidence and found myself agreeing with the side that is against evolution.

    Besides, even if I did debunk it for the first time... I wouldn't do it for the prize. ;)

    ALRIGHTY THEN. :D

    Ah, it's been a while since I debated this. This could be fun. :emoji_grin:

    Let's start with this:

    Let me expand on this a bit since he is correct.

    To start, evolution does not meet the criteria to be called a "scientific theory" because every example I've ever found describes evolution as a change of some kind. Change is not a scientific theory. You changed your clothes. That's not a scientific theory. You cannot prove to me the existence of a hurricane by stating it's the change in the weather.

    So if evolution is a scientific theory, please post it. And let me show you what I'm looking for since the last time I did this, the guy tried to use a Wikipedia post. :emoji_expressionless:

    Let's use germs as an example:

    Germ: A living substance capable of developing into an organ, part, or organism as a whole; a primordium.

    Source: https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/germ

    Now the important part. Germ Theory: Specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases.

    Source: http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html

    Now your turn. For evolution, do the same. Avoid ANYTHING that describes evolution as a "change" or a "gradual process of development" or some other "fancy" way of stating it's a change. If you can't, then evolution is not a scientific theory. If evolution is a change, then evolution is not a scientific theory. Feel me? Like the article you linked. It states the following right at the beginning:

    "Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales"

    Which means the article is not talking about a scientific theory. We're looking for the mechanism of causation when it comes to evolution, not the changes it makes.

    I ask this because when you look at evolution, you'll find it's very different from a lot of the other sciences. "With evolution, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science. All the evolutionist can do is attempt to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of said events and processes. Instead, you can only construct a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

    -Ernst Mayr


    In other words, evolution is a "science" completely without experiments. It's like Rib Eye... WITHOUT COWS. :emoji_joy:

    Which means the evolutionist must use circular reasoning to prove evolution exists. Because the following:

    "Instead, you can only construct a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

    Is literally the definition of circular reasoning.

    So how can you have a real scientific theory without experiments and tests...??? So yes, you tell me that evolution is the most scrutinized and the most validated theory in the history of science... with no experiments. Which means... evolution is not a science. If experiments are inappropriate for analyzing evolution, then it fails a later step in the Scientific Method, which is to test evolution's independant variables. But of course, I still assert that it fails the first step. That it can be observed at all.

    Remember, evolution is NOT a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only.

    So what about its replication? To attempt to accomplish this, it would take a very simple experiment. If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the labratory. One could take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup that was where life supposedly originated, fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please, pump any gases over it or through it, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy.

    And then you just wait. You wait for about a year or so and look for enzymes, proteins produced by living cells, etc, that have appeared in the bath.

    Hint: You will find nothing. Perhaps some sludge composed of amino-acids or other simple organic chemicals would appear, but not a single living cell will appear ever. Not for one year, not for billions of them.

    To prove evolution, you have to be able to show me a practical example of non-biological materials coming together to form life. You can't.

    I'll stop there for now since we've a lot to cover. Speciation needs to be discussed still, for example. Although, I want to mention this:

    We don't live in a society that encourages critical thinking. We live in a society that is taught since the age of children to respect authority. It's not a stretch to think that the same thinking is still rampant in these scientists you trust. Besides, who cares what they think? It's what you think that matters (more), not them.

    Also, mixing the two world views:

    Unguided -- Nature or Guided --- Intelligent Agency

    Is an extremely contradictory worldview. There is no third position. If you refuse one, you agree with the other.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019
    need4realchg and The Unfadeable like this.
  2. letter

    letter Distinguished Fapstronaut

    723
    30,679
    123
    My Journal
    One thing I am unafraid of is the truth.

    Because part of this discourse has included free-will vs determinism, allow to me share something on this subject from a discipline which is founded in the hard science of physics and should thus help better understand the strange and seemingly paradoxical nature of reality. Because biology is founded in the reality that physics describes, it is only natural that an understanding of physics can help us better understand the underlying mechanisms that drive biology.

    So how does physics speak about free-will vs determinism?

    Determinism is founded in Newtonian Physics, which is the study of macroscopic, relatively big things like baseballs and planets. This part of reality operates according to a set of laws that are very orderly and predictable. If you knew all the information about all the macro-things in the universe, you could know everything that'll ever happen because it boils down to a set of mathematical equations that predict things with sharp accuracy. Using just Newtonian Physics, we were able to calculate the forces required to send people to land on the moon. This would not possible unless we lived in a universe where reality was so arranged that there were a set of principles which remain constant. If we didn't, we could not throw a baseball and know where it will end up.

    Free-will is founded in Quantum Mechanics, which is the study of the microscopic, relatively small things like quarks and electrons. This part of reality operates according to a set of laws that appear to be very strange and random. For instance, you cannot absolutely know both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle. This is called Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The more you know about the position, the less you know about velocity. All you can really figure out are the chances of where a particle is and how fast it is moving. See the double slit experiment and quantum entanglement for more strangeness of how the micro world works.

    Now for the clincher.

    The macroscopic Newtonian universe is made from the building blocks of the microscopic quantum world. If anyone today was able to describe how this actually works together in reality, they would win a Nobel prize. The sets of rules that describe each case of reality are so conflicting that they don't like each other at all. Attempts to describe ways these two realities merge into one include String/M-theory, which requires 11+ dimensions of spacetime and even the possibility that we live not in a universe, but a multiverse, to have a chance of being valid and true.

    So.

    Free will?
    Determinism?

    There are cases for both.

    How this helps you understand biology? Well. In a way, we are beings who are both bound by fate yet have free-will because we live in a reality where existing requires us to be a part of both. How exactly this is is still being figured out...

    So I hope it puts some of the more philosophical questions that were raised here to bed.
     
    Brokenman123 and Max Fisher like this.
  3. Max Fisher

    Max Fisher Fapstronaut

    Unlikely. But I dig your style. You're alright! What's your poison. Sit down, I'll pour us drinks and we can discuss the multiverse.
     
    need4realchg, Brokenman123 and letter like this.
  4. letter

    letter Distinguished Fapstronaut

    723
    30,679
    123
    My Journal
    True enough. I did just take a conundrum and replace it with an even bigger conundrum. But shh...don't let them know that. Maybe they won't notice and thereby not question that this thought I freely planted in their minds was fated to happen, and we can enjoy our drinks in some kind of peace.

    But if not, and they do notice, perhaps the ale will tell us tales of the versions of ourselves in other worlds where such tactics did their trick.

    There is meaning in beer.

    But I'll have a scotch, thanks :)
     
    Brokenman123 and Max Fisher like this.
  5. Max Fisher

    Max Fisher Fapstronaut

    Drink Scotch whiskey all night long and die behind the wheel....- Steely Dan
     
  6. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    Sorry guys, I was busy over the weekend but I'll respond to you all soon.
     
    Coffee Candy likes this.
  7. rob13_

    rob13_ Fapstronaut

    Animals do have free will, they're just not intellegent enough to go against their instincts most of the time.
     
    Max Fisher likes this.
  8. Onehope

    Onehope Fapstronaut


    I didn't read all replies because clearly some people here aren't educated enough on the subject and claim evolution is "just a theory" well, germs are still a theory and so is gravity.

    To answer your question about how we evolved and how other animals evolve...

    Humans have a very complex brain, but the brain is divided in different parts that go back in time to a more primitive structure, it's all there to see, it's not like the brain hides away it's past, it just continued to add new parts until it became the brain we have today.

    [​IMG]

    Among the animals of the world, and the closest related to us, the mammals, the prefrontal cortex of the human brain is the most developed. Its not to say that this random act of nature only happened to us, as the fossil record proves, there have been other ape related animals in the world that were closely as smart as humans, but they are all extinct. Humans did win this war of the survival of the fittest.

    I guess the only difference between us an other animals, is that while a creature acts more on instinct and emotion, we think about our instincts and emotions. Thinking is the ability that separates us from them, which is why we are called homo sapiens.

    There is a larger debate about free will being an ilusion, since scientists have discovered that all our decisions are made by the brain even before we come up with them, but since Im not versed in the subject I suggest you do your own research.
     
    Brokenman123 likes this.
  9. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    OK got it.
     
    Coffee Candy and Max Fisher like this.
  10. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    Yeah I also agree. I see no reason to think that humans would be special in comparison to other animals.
    Yeah I also agree with this. Scientists are always discovering new information and it's possible that we might find information in the future that could overturn evolution but the central idea that all life keeps changing and adapting to its environment is real and can't be denied. And thanks for that little tidbit about unrelated organisms being able to transfer information to others, I didn't know that. Also what else did Darwin get wrong?
     
  11. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    Critical thinking is important but it can only get you so far with respect to certain topics. With something as scientific as evolution, you'd also need counter evidence as well. Also disproving evolution doesn't necessarily prove creationism is true. These people have spent years studying it and for me to just use critical thinking skills and say that I've disproven it would be disingenuous since they've spent way more time studying it than me.
    Because I can't think of plausible reason to for them to lie about it and understanding evolution has actually helped a lot with science and technology so I don't think that they're untrustworthy.
    Although I do see where you're coming from, it's not so much believe as in faith for in them for no reason but believe as in trust them for good reason since they've used evolution to predict things and those predictions have come true. Also, evolution only has to do with how life developed not how life originated... it makes no claims about the origins of life.
    Sure humans can be irrational and not accept truth when it's right in front of them and yes, people can have their agendas but this sounds like a giant conspiracy and TBH it doesn't sound likely. You really think all of them are just covering evolution as a fraud and lying to the entire world? That sounds too farfetched. Even Christians who would have the most motivation to disprove evolution since it doesn't line up with the Genesis account, are some of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists, so I see no reason not to trust these guys.
    The better word would be "accept" evolution.
    We have to risk being misled because it's the best we can do at the moment but it has shown itself to be a trustworthy theory and also the term "theory" in science is the closest thing to a fact.
    Well it seems to be the most plausible explanation.
    Well you're making an unfalsifiable claim and since it can't be falsified I would have no reason to trust what you say and also because I see no evidence for your claim but the same isn't true with evolution.
    That's a high burden of proof to put on yourself but OK.
    OK, if you say so, let's see. I only know a little about evolution and I'm not a scientist, so I could very well give wrong answers but I'll try.
    Well first of all evolution is the fact and the theory of evolution attempts to describe how evolution happened and yes it's a change of some kind but it is still scientific since it makes predictions, creates hypotheses, is methodical, observable etc. so I disagree with your assessment that it's not scientific.
    Right and the theory of evolution does the same thing by attempting to explain how evolution occurred and also making predictions about it.
    Well when making a scientific theory you have be more specific than "it's just a change" and again I disagree with your assessment that it's not scientific since evolution makes predictions that are testable and falsifiable which is in line with the scientific method and has been found to have explanatory power.
    That quote isn't totally true... yes there's some historicity involved in it but there are also tests and experiments that demonstrate it's reliability as a theory through testable predictions and observations.
    But it has been observed and as I said before, there have been tests and experiments done to validate it. I'll link them later.
    It actually does and has allowed for predictions.
    First of all, evolution takes a while so it might not be observed right away but scientists have been able to observe what you're referring to in a laboratory setting and secondly you're also referring to abiogenesis which is still be tested and there have been some promising results.
    You're conflating evolution with abiogenesis here... they're not the same thing and as I mentioned earlier, there have been some promising tests to show that it can happen.
    I actually agree with what you've stated here... it is a shame that society doesn't teach kids to think critically for themselves and I agree that it should be encouraged more but scientists have shown themselves to be trustworthy and they're humble enough at times to admit their faults but that's exactly why things like peer review and the scientific method exists and instruments of objectivity... to get rid of bias and subjectivity and all the, things that impede the quest for knowledge or truth and scientists have used it time and again to demonstrate the reliability of their claims.
    Fair enough, I guess... I can't really think of a third option but evidence needs to be given for both though not just arguments against the other side.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2019
  12. One Mic

    One Mic Fapstronaut

    This presupposes that evolution is scientific at all. Remember, that's still in question throughout this discussion.

    This contradicts the following:

    If you outright deny one of these choices, then based on the laws of logic, you ipso facto MUST concur with the other. Because there is no third position, then yes, disproving evolution would point to creationism being the answer.

    Alright, let's argue from this point of view, then.

    Where did I say it's a "giant conspiracy" and "are lying to the entire world"?

    You can't be naive to think that in order for a misconception to be widely held, it must also be a conspiracy widely held. It's odd. I assume you accept the premise that a large consensus of people used to believe things in the past that turned out to be wrong today (knowing the history of science), but you can't seem to fathom the same occuring now.

    Also, the "lying to the entire world" assumes that evolution is a popular worldview to have.

    The burden of proof lies with you, not me. You're making the positive claim that evolution exists while I'm making the negative claim that it does not. Because nobody can prove a negative, all I can do is poke plenty of holes into evolution and it's up to you (as well as everyone in agreement with you) to substantiate the holes I (and others) point out. If you fail to do this, then nobody with any modicum of rational thought has a valid reason to think evolution actually exists.


    You agree that critical thinking should be encouraged more, but so far, you haven't shown that kind of thinking yourself. In fact, everything I've read so far has been multiple examples of faith. Examples:

    This is faith, not critical thinking. Because your perspective (remember, perspectives can be flawed) cannot see a reason to not trust these scientists (even though you've been told twice by myself of existing reasons), you can't imagine them being wrong.

    This is an extremely broad claim with nothing substantiating it and still looks to what others say as opposed to what you say. What predictions? How have they come true?

    More faith.

    No... the best you can do is investigate the theory yourself and see if it measures up to what you know about reality.

    Keyword: "seems"

    I don't think you understood what I'm saying. This isn't the point. The point is that nobody can say for sure why a extremely incorrect worldview like evolution is pushed as fact in the mainstream forms of media. Your reason for not trusting what I say should be because you ultimately understand that when it comes to worldviews, you must investigate yourself instead of trusting whatever you read, but you don't do that when it comes to these irrelevant scientists. Instead, you commit the fallacy of appealing to popularity, that because a great number of them supposedly agree with evolution, that evolution itself must be true.

    Their experiments are presented because they have to be, but then you say this:

    You admit that you don't know very much about evolution, so how can you completely concur with these supposed experiments you keep mentioning when you:

    1. May lack other information that would cast doubt on these experiments.
    2. May be unable to substantiate the experiments themselves.
    3. May not be able to keep up with individuals who know more about evolution than you do, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it.
    Why would you allow yourself to only have a small amount of knowledge of evolution and then agree with it? Who does that? Why wouldn't you spend a good month or so researching both worldviews and follow where the evidence leads? Most of what you've presented so far is you taking the brush that is the fingers that type on whatever device you're using to view this and form a reply and demonstrate that you've painted these scientists as people that cannot commit wrong when it comes to science, as you've stated here:

    When this completely contradicts what the history of science actually is. Even these people that you seem to worship so much will tell you that they're almost always WRONG. What you've told me thus far is too co-dependent on the claim that these people are intelligent, humble, and trustworthy when you have nothing to substantiate that because you don't know them personally. And that because they have these traits, as well as some seemingly valid-looking experiments, evolution exists.

    Hm. I should link an interview of Richard Dawkins getting visibly upset when he was questioned on his thoughts about intelligent design. See if I can find that. Because despite what you seem to think, most people dislike having their views questioned. Scientists are no different.

    And so is the crux of the problem. As far as I can tell, you never followed the evidence. You followed the people (appealing to popularity). If all you can give me are links instead of using your own knowledge of evolution to argue, then this tells me you're not informed enough to argue for or against evolution.

    Whenever you start to argue from the position of authority and popularity, you move from the realm of academia to the realm of religion and dogma. Stop trusting scientists. Science is supposed to be a methodology. Not a belief system.

    Another jumble of broad claims. There's nothing that answers the "hows" here, only the "whats".

    This sidesteps what I was looking for and is yet another jumble of broad claims. I suppose I'll have to look elsewhere for someone to post the scientific theory of evolution.

    MORE. BROAD. CLAIMS.

    I'll ignore the rest since I can't work with broad claims (take a shot for everytime I say that). But before I continue, I'm going to wait for you to actually put some evidence forward for evolution. Because so far, I'm a kid at his birthday party being served frosting without the cake.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
    need4realchg likes this.
  13. Noone knew how things work on a molecular level at his time, so any mechanical explanation he might have come up with would be certainly wrong. I don't know the original ideas in detail so perhaps someone else can reply better - anyone read Origin of Species?
     
  14. wethebest

    wethebest Fapstronaut

    1,190
    3,687
    143
    Evolution is real in that we evolve and adapt to circumstances slowly over time. But evolution in the sense that we all came from monkeys and shit, I'm not so sure. It's a theory just like most things. No evidencary data backing it up but a possibility. Sounds a little silly to me
     
  15. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    Wow thanks, I didn't know these things. Thanks you. I'll do some more research.
     
    Coffee Candy likes this.
  16. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    If they're just not intelligent enough to be able to go against their instincts then their actions would largely be determined though, right?
     
    Coffee Candy likes this.
  17. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    The question is where did this ability come from?
    Yeah I've heard about that too and thanks, I am doing research on it.
     
    Coffee Candy likes this.
  18. Omega.

    Omega. Fapstronaut

    1,396
    26,007
    143
    Gender dimorphism greatly improves the ability of a species to adapt and survive. Females require less resources to survive, but sacrifice muscle and overall physical capacitance as a result. Just 1 generic example.

    No. Most of evolution's effects become pronounced during meiotic mutations or anomalies; not through somatic mutations.

    Blood. Read up evolutionary biology for the answer. It'll take no less than a book to answer this.

    1. Blood.
    2. Simultaneous.

    Again. Evolutionary biology.

    Lmao. But you're still gonna debate on it XD

    Much more reliable methods than traditional carbon 14 dating have been discovered and successfully implemented.

    Macroevolution is usually a direct consequence of microevolution. Without hereditary transmission, this world would be a very, very different place. Empty of (edit: almost) all life, in fact.


    Honestly dude, just pick up a book and read. Debating on a topic without prior education is pointless.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2019
  19. Omega.

    Omega. Fapstronaut

    1,396
    26,007
    143
    This ability is called sentience.

    It comes primarily from the cerebrum.
     
    Coffee Candy and Brokenman123 like this.
  20. Omega.

    Omega. Fapstronaut

    1,396
    26,007
    143
    You are absolutely right. We didn't come from monkeys.

    Rather, monkeys and humans both evolved separately from a common ancestor.
    (Ramapythecus-> Humans; Dryopithecus-> Monkeys/Apes)

    Actually, there is a massive amount of data backing up evolution. Perhaps your source of information is incomplete. I'll give an example for you to look up:

    "Flappy ears in dogs and evolution"
    This is the best answer in my opinion: https://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/795

    But you see; the wall of text you have to read to get a probable answer is what puts most people off.

    So in the end, we're left with more mouths than brains; the result is much confusion and postulation. :(
     

Share This Page