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

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

  1. Omega.

    Omega. Fapstronaut

    1,396
    26,007
    143
    Abiogenesis determined the laws that biological systems follow. Had our bodies been composed of Silicon instead of Carbon (a very plausible alternative, I should add), the very process of our evolution would have followed a different course entirely.

    Abiotic factors have always played a massive role in determining how organisms evolve.

    So yes, evolution is entirely founded upon the way organic life itself evolved.

    The very study of genetics is more chemistry than biology.
     
  2. Roady

    Roady Fapstronaut

    Yes. If we evolved.
    But.... Did we evolve?
    The fact that we have a will (that thing that makes it possible to make decisions) may point to the fact that there must be going on something different.

    Well, the fact that you are here with a porn addiction shows you are an organism who follows the instincts quite easily.

    Yes, there MUST be a spiritual creator who created everyhing, including you and me.
    It's you who aren't possible to verify that fact. For myself, I can verify. I am 100% sure of the existence of God. And 100% sure that the evolution theory is a theory that's is grounded on wet sand.

    For you, it's an unfalsifiable proposition, for me, it's quite clear.
    You have a free will. God gave you that will. It's part of you.
    God is love in all His being. And love..... demands a free choice. That's why you have a free will.

    So
    "why do humans have free will if we evolved... "
    it's a contradicitio in terminis.
     
  3. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    Yeah, sorry, it has more to do with how inorganic matter evolved into living organisms. I've heard it defined slightly differently by others but yeah, your definition is correct. The issue of how life came from nonlife is what creationists conflate with evolution when it is a different matter.
     
  4. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    Tada, I'm a prophet lol, I was able to predict what you might say.
    So are you. Don't act like you're Mr holier than thou and like you're superior to me, you're also an organism who follows his instincts quite easily... that's why you're on this site, so don't act so superior.
    This is going offtopic and you're kinda got on my nerves but acting like you're superior to me even though you're an addict too so take this elsewhere because at the end of the day, I can't verify what you claim to be able to verify and other people from other religions have contradictory experiences to yours.
     
  5. Infinite spirit

    Infinite spirit Fapstronaut

    860
    740
    93
    We don't have free will..regardless of evolution being true or false.
     
  6. Roady

    Roady Fapstronaut

    I don't get you with "being superior" but I get the feeling I'm wasting my time in this thread. Again.
    I wish you sincere good luck with finding the truth in your life.
    I already have found but if I claim so, you may find that superior. I think I can live with that :)

    Oh and one little detail:
    I was an addict. Now I'm an ex addict.
    The truth has set me free :)
     
  7. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    Good, I'm glad you left, you and your prideful, holier than thou, false sense of superiority self can take your shenanigans elsewhere. You're saying you're an ex addict now but pride usually goes before a fall.
     
  8. Roady

    Roady Fapstronaut

    It seems you need to judge me. A way to defense yourself.
    I've learned that what you say about me , is in your own heart as these are your words.

    Yes pride will make us fall, so be careful.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  9. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    I thought you were leaving, so just leave already and you're the one who judged me first. Just get out of here already.
     
  10. Roady

    Roady Fapstronaut

    Show me where I judged you please.
     
  11. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    709
    6,967
    123
    Forget about it, I don't want to rehash anything.
     
  12. Roady

    Roady Fapstronaut

    You never respond on the content but always talk around and around and around.
     
  13. rob13_

    rob13_ Fapstronaut

    No, circumstances change
     
  14. One Mic

    One Mic Fapstronaut

    Saying this insults me too, so the hell's your problem?

    The more we talk, the more I think you just did about 20 minutes of Googling (in all the wrong places) and decided to present your findings here. Evolution is not a mind. If evolution is supposed to be a process in which as time goes by, organisms develop into more complex origins, it by itself doesn't predict anything. Secondly, evolution fails the very first step of the Scientific Method, I'm afraid. Which is to observe a phenomena.

    It should be noted that the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that nobody has ever seen it happen. You cannot literally observe a creature evolving into something else. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occuring in creatures all the time and there would be many transitional forms we could observe. What we see instead, however, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear (and unbridgeable) gaps between the kinds.

    I don't question the existence of processes such as adaptation and microevolution (changes within a species, also referred to as "bounded variation"). These kinds of changes occur fairly often. But the process of say, a dog, evolving into something other than a dog cannot be observed and cannot be replicated. Which fails the scientific method. This would be macroevolution. And since it can't be observed or replicated, this would exclude it from the realm of true science.

    If you can observe and replicate it, show me how. Where? Then explain the lack of transitional forms as this process is occuring. Then explain the difference between natural selection and survival of the fittest in a cross-speciation scenario. (nobody answers the last one properly, so let's see if you can)

    This would suppose that evolution is being guided by a creator, but you must first prove it exists at all. Which doesn't help address what we're talking about here.

    Faith: "complete TRUST or confidence in someone or something"

    They're synonyms.
    Trust in God. Trust in scientists. Where exactly is the difference? That they do "experiments"? I could argue that God (although I don't and won't) has evidence in the Bible. BELIEF (trust/faith) is something that you can feel, but cannot prove. KNOWLEDGE is the realization of a fact.

    You don't think independently. You can't let go of your faith (in your trust) in these people, no differently than somebody can put aside their faith in a God and think about/approach an issue from another
    perspective. Which makes me wonder if I'm wasting my time.

    Which to quote:

    Yeah. I concur.

    I would be fine if you were an evolutionist who at least tried to understand what he was talking about, because I would have a far more fun debate with that. But from talking to you the past few days, you haven't shown me anything that would suggest you know very much about evolution at all. When I called you out on it:

    You hid behind this excuse. More faith, more trust. You could at least research and work on understanding their findings. But not only can you not let go of this absurd belief that these people are more qualified and intelligent, you let it stand in the way of researching evolution properly! Of expanding your knowledge! Evolution isn't hard to understand, nearly nothing is with enough time and effort.

    If they really were intelligent, they would present evolution in layman terms so everybody reading could understand what they were trying to say easily. There's a vast amount of information on evolution out there that does this already. Even if you did think these people were more qualified and intelligent, you could still read their words and attempt to understand why they reached the conclusions they did. Instead, you let them hold the reigns of your mind and follow whereever they steer you.

    And these:

    Huh. This is what you meant by "predictions". I'll get to these in a moment.

    I'm not convinced you understand what you're talking about here. Since this contains technical jargon (which is more used for intimidation purposes in debates, not teaching purposes). You didn't even come up with this jargon on your own. You copied and pasted it from this site:

    http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html

    But hey, let's go with it for a second since this doesn't intimidate me.

    Stating that evolution doesn't rule out a creator is false because it would be extremely inefficient to create such a system. To turn a car into a submarine, there are a VAST amount of things you must to do a car to make it function like a submarine. So much so that it would be easier to just create the submarine from scratch. Using this example, look at DNA. It has approxmiately 3,000,000,000 lines of genetic code. In the scenario of a creator, that creator would be introducing constant upgrades (either directly or indirectly) to every species on Earth... instead of just creating the intended species in mind first...?

    I don't think so.

    So operating in the realm of evolution being a random driver, in evolution, just making one average-sized protein molecule is already composed of 288 amino-acids of 12 varying types, which can be combined to 10 to the 300th power in different ways. Of all those possibilities, only one forms the desired protein molecule and there are over 600 types of proteins combined in the smallest bacterias ever discovered. Just one amino-acid in the wrong place (or one NON Proteinogenic AA or Racemic Version) can collapse this entire structure.

    In other words, because of evolution having no driver, it would no different than a toddler opening up the code in your favorite videogame and proceeds to bash the keyboard, saves the changes, and leaves. And you're telling me evolution can make these supposed predictions.

    Riiiiiigghht...

    Also, let's take a closer look at these predictions:

    Funny... it should be noted that only people with a specialized interest in fossils (say paleontologists) actually find said fossils. Using the earlier example of transitional links, fossils should be literally everywhere.

    Every Tom, Dick, and Joe that decided to dig a hole or their kids decided to dig a hole should be finding fossils all of the time. Fossils of not only origin species, but as well as transitional links between the creatures. There should be literally billions of them! After are, there are billions of creatures on this Earth (even more, if transitional creatures existed). However, we are instead presented with extremely fragmentary evidence at best of fossils that only people with a special interest in fossils find.

    So essentially, there should be many instances where somebody tripped and fell on their ass because they stumbled on a fossil. Especially considering how much construction is being done today. With all the dirt bulldozers and excavators and such move, there should be plenty of construction workers being "psuedo-paleotologists". In other words, accidentally stumbling onto fossils all the time.

    Now when we were talking about evolution's predicting something, I was referring to accurately predicting how a creature that exists now will evolve into in the future, not looking at patterns and predicting that the pattern will stay constant. For example:

    By the same logic of all of this, evolution predicted that all mammals have hair. With these, you would still look at past and existing examples (which you can only do in evolution) to predict something... that's never going to change...?

    No, what I mean by failing to see what will happen in the future with evolution is that to predict the future, you would need to know what was causing some members of a species to leave more surviving descendants than others. You would also need to be sure that specific kind of selection pressure would be constantly maintained for an extremely long time, around hundreds to thousands of generations. Then you would need to know what the genetic and phenotypic basis for the discrepancy underlying these distinctions were.

    Nobody knows and really can't know any of these things. Which means evolution can't predict what a species will evolve into.

    *sigh...*

    More... faith.

    Now look who's making unfalsifiable claims.

    That's precisely the problem. Man, this is worse than just appealing to authority. You're relying on authorities at this point.

    You're trying to get me to do what I tried to do long ago, which is search for evidence of evolution myself. I'm asking you to tell me and show me how it exists, not send me links and force me to look through sites I've already looked through. I'm starting to think this is all you can do. Send me links or copy and paste pages from websites as evidence.

    (though I admit to just being lazy about writing a proper response to it since it's late and I'm tired right now... so when I can. like one of your links talk about how humans share a common ancestry with chimps, but nobody seems to know how they reached that conclusion)

    But I still question if I'm wasting my time here. If you can't shake your faith (also known as trust) in scientists and their experiments, why would anything I say matter?
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2019
    Brokenman123 and Omega. like this.
  15. Omega.

    Omega. Fapstronaut

    1,396
    26,007
    143
    Ummm, this is taken directly from an entry in your journal... 2 days ago-

    I really don't mean to start anything here, believe me.
    But if you're still fantasizing, you're definitely not an ex-addict.

    But hey, good luck on your recovery. That's what the forum is for- to help you. :)
     
  16. Omega.

    Omega. Fapstronaut

    1,396
    26,007
    143
    And around and around and around after that too XD
     
  17. Roady

    Roady Fapstronaut

    It's a major difference if I fantasize every evening (25 years ago) because the fantasy controls me, or do it once in 3 months (today) when I choose to do. I see myself as ex-addict and act accordingly. And your opinion is not gonna change that :)
     
  18. Omega.

    Omega. Fapstronaut

    1,396
    26,007
    143
    The fact that you say you "see yourself" as an ex-addict is an opinion of its own. Remember that ^^

    Good luck in your recovery.
     
  19. Roady

    Roady Fapstronaut

    Nope. It's a matter of believe.

    Thanks. I wish you good luck in the recovery process as well, until you believe you are an ex addict. By faith in grace.
     
  20. Omega.

    Omega. Fapstronaut

    1,396
    26,007
    143
    I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't force your concepts of "recovery" upon me.

    I recovered the moment I stopped PMO, fantasizing and edging consistently, although I freely admit I still have a lot of wasted neurotransmitters to make up for.

    Actual Results > Belief

    Have a PMO free day. ^^
     

Share This Page