Darwin's theory

Vivisectus

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

Come on mick you can do better than this old strawman. We've been over it a hundred times already. At least dress it up a bit. The old "I don't understand evolution therefor MAGIC" is a bit like a burger: it is only really good if you do it with all the trimmings.

nozzferrahhtoo

donegaLroad wrote: »

There must be some explanation as why there is a huge surge in Autism. I know that science is also pointing the finger at IVF.

I am not entirely convinced there has been any such surge. Rather I think our ability to diagnose, understand and recognize it means that there is a surge in Autism as a diagnosis rather than an actual surge in autism. Unfortunately it is not always possible to go back and re-diagnose the dead, so full verification of this is really not an easy thing to do.

But it is a common and known phenomenon. The figures in certain conditions surge often, not because more people get the condition, but more people are diagnosed with it.

So the first step in explaining the surge in Autism would be to verify there HAS been a surge in Autism first.

Vivisectus

donegaLroad wrote: »

Fluid intelligence and disorders such as Autism are the next step in human evolution. Interesting theory. There must be some explanation as why there is a huge surge in Autism. I know that science is also pointing the finger at IVF.

There is: we became very familiar with the disorder and started diagnosing people with it. It is a wide spectrum diagnosis anyway, and we are not sure what causes it or if we are currently not simply using it as a blanket term for several very different developmental problems.

And no, science is not pointing the finger at IVF. That i silly, and you are a silly person for believing it.

There ARE however lots of people who blame

- chemtrails
- vaccination
- trans fats
- heavy metals in our diet
- a lack of oxygen
- digestive bacteria in the gut

and who treat it with

- bleach
- Mineral supplements
- Coconut kefi
- Having a bath in some clay

I hope we find out what causes it soon, because the amount of exasperating nonsense about it is growing by the day. Also it sucks to have it, of course.

The Corinthian

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Well explained, thanks. And it does sort of make sense. So if evolution is correct, why are there still people who dont believe in it ? Are they simply not evolved enough ?

Because for some, the basic core beliefs they have are more important than whether those beliefs are actually valid or not.

You see the same thing with conspiracy theorists; you can disprove the conspiracy theory rationally, but the moment you do, the conspiracy theorist will simply expand their theory to address this flaw, typically with a new theory (e.g. the evidence disproving the theory is part of an NSA disinformation campaign).

If, as is the case with conspiracy theorists and those with fundamentalist religious views, the core premise is central to their lives, it becomes psychologically impossible to abandon it. It becomes imperative to prove the premise, be it the Bible being an accurate historical account of the universe or the moon landings being faked and so the process turns from discovering the truth to proving or at least protecting the premise in question.

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Dumb and blind certainly. But no more directionless than gravity.

Beano

I find it funny that there are people in this thread genuinely trying to use facts to show creationists that they are wrong. A pointless exercise if ever there was one.

endacl

Beano wrote: »

I find it funny that there are people in this thread genuinely trying to use facts to show creationists that they are wrong. A pointless exercise if ever there was one.

Wibbs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not entirely convinced there has been any such surge. Rather I think our ability to diagnose, understand and recognize it means that there is a surge in Autism as a diagnosis rather than an actual surge in autism.

I'd agree, though it's a hard one to nail down. Apparently there have been surges in some areas. EG kids of Silicon Valley parents have higher rates. Initially this was thought to be because such parents were more likely to put their children forward for diagnosis, but when factoring in parents from a similar socioeconomic background but not working in IT they still found an increase. Other illnesses like diabetes are definitely on the rise. I'm personally convinced that alzheimers and other dementias are on the rise and not because of newer diagnostic tools. The notion that it's just because we're living longer doesn't sit with me. Not when some people are coming down with such conditions in their fifties and sixties. I reckon it's a tagalong illness of diabetes. It's known that having type 2 diabetes increases ones risk of dementia. Mental illnesses like depression and anxiety seem to be a lot more prevalent today too. But all that's a debate for another thread.

endacl

Wibbs wrote: »

Mental illnesses seem to be a lot more prevalent today too. But all that's a debate for another thread.

I'd say it's entirely appropriate for this one. There must be something rattling loose for a belief in creationism to persist.

Beano

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd agree, though it's a hard one to nail down. Apparently there have been surges in some areas. EG kids of Silicon Valley parents have higher rates. Initially this was thought to be because such parents were more likely to put their children forward for diagnosis, but when factoring in parents from a similar socioeconomic background but not working in IT they still found an increase. Other illnesses like diabetes are definitely on the rise. I'm personally convinced that alzheimers and other dementias are on the rise and not because of newer diagnostic tools. The notion that it's just because we're living longer doesn't sit with me. Not when some people are coming down with such conditions in their fifties and sixties. I reckon it's a tagalong illness of diabetes. It's known that having type 2 diabetes increases ones risk of dementia. Mental illnesses like depression and anxiety seem to be a lot more prevalent today too. But all that's a debate for another thread.

well thanks for that cheery news Wibbs . Another thing to look forward to.

Hoop66

endacl wrote: »

I'd say it's entirely appropriate for this one. There must be something rattling loose for a belief in creationism to persist.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I honestly think that a dogged, fundamentalist religious belief (examples creationism, young-earth etc.) is akin to a mental illness, if not an actual one.

Cianmcliam

Hoop66 wrote: »

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I honestly think that a dogged, fundamentalist religious belief (examples creationism, young-earth etc.) is akin to a mental illness, if not an actual one.

Not so. It's a common misconception that religions originated in order to provide a reasonable explanation of natural law and the physical world. This is where Dawkins et al. get the point and pervasive power of religion so wrong.

They originated so that tribal societies could organise and maintain large groups of people who were not related. Creating origin myths and establishing a consensus was the only requirement, not observable facts or common sense. It doesn't matter if the doctrine is true or credible, all that matters is that the group agrees it is a taboo to contradict it.

In fact, religious beliefs become even more powerful if they are completely implausible. By declaring that you believe the religious doctrine rather than what your own eyes and mental faculties are telling you, you publicly demonstrate your commitment to the religion even to the point of risking looking extremely foolish by standing beside the naked king and telling everyone how fine the cloth he wears is.

Being able to recite convoluted and illogical doctrine also demonstrates your in-group credentials more convincingly than a blow-in can manage by dressing and talking the same way. If religious explanations actually made logical sense then anyone could deduce what the locals beliefs were pretty easily.

Hoop66

Yes, I can agree that that's the most logical explanation for religious belief occurring originally.

What I'm suggesting is that to maintain those irrational beliefs today, in our society, could (note could) be seen as a mental illness.

Cianmcliam

Hoop66 wrote: »

Yes, I can agree that that's the most logical explanation for religious belief occurring originally.

What I'm suggesting is that to maintain those irrational beliefs today, in our society, could (note could) be seen as a mental illness.

Well for it to qualify as a mental illness it would have to be an abnormal state but there are so many similar beliefs, attitudes, '-isms', cults etc. that it doesn't make sense to single out religions. Take a fanatical fan of a sports team, like an Irish person supporting an English football club to which they have no tangible link at all. All the paraphenalia, the arguing with others in the pub and work, taking slights against the team personally, the ecstatic response to the team succeeding, believing there is something higher than and exists separately from the current players, manager etc. that remains through the decades etc.

ScumLord

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It isnt. No one claims you can turn a carrot cake into a chocolate log. But people are claiming, that by tiny steps, an apes beget men.

You're missing the point. Millions of years ago a species of ape got seperated by climate change. Half got stuck in the forest and half got stuck in a receding forest that would eventually turn into the grass plains of Africa. The ones on the grass plains turned into us and gradually changed into an animal that was so different from it's ancestor that it could no longer breed with it. The ones that stayed in the forest were already ideally adapted for that environment so they didn't need to change that much. The two animals are now as different as carrot cake is to chocolate log. While most of the ingredients are the same there are fundamental differences and there's no way to pull apart either cake to get it to turn into the other.

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

Evolution doesn't need intelligence or direction, that's why it's so good. It just works. The problem with a creator god simply using evolution to create the animals it wants is that it goes against the benefits of evolution. Evolution only needs to be able to survive in the environment it's in, it doesn't care about the future it has no reason too, it can't control the future so it can only adapt to whatever happens. It's pointless for it to try and adapt to a future that may not happen. It's just a natural process.

Thargor

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Well for it to qualify as a mental illness it would have to be an abnormal state but there are so many similar beliefs, attitudes, '-isms', cults etc. that it doesn't make sense to single out religions. Take a fanatical fan of a sports team, like an Irish person supporting an English football club to which they have no tangible link at all. All the paraphenalia, the arguing with others in the pub and work, taking slights against the team personally, the ecstatic response to the team succeeding, believing there is something higher than and exists separately from the current players, manager etc. that remains through the decades etc.

The person supporting the football club doesn't go around claiming the players have magical powers or indoctrinating children to believe in a magical invisible wizard that lives in the sky though does he?

Doctor Jimbob

Thargor wrote: »

The person supporting the football club doesn't go around claiming the players have magical powers or indoctrinating children to believe in a magical invisible wizard that lives in the sky though does he?

Depends on the fan :pac:

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Ah here, you're always acting the crybaby when people are "namecalling" yet you keep throwing out the same horse**** generalising digs at people on here. Grow the **** up.

None of what you quote were 'digs' at anybody ... they were just reasonable deductions ... that all Humans are seriously influenced by their 'worldview' AKA their belief system AKA their 'faith position' AKA their 'religion'.

J C

ScumLord wrote: »

Evolution doesn't need intelligence or direction, that's why it's so good. It just works. The problem with a creator god simply using evolution to create the animals it wants is that it goes against the benefits of evolution. Evolution only needs to be able to survive in the environment it's in, it doesn't care about the future it has no reason too, it can't control the future so it can only adapt to whatever happens. It's pointless for it to try and adapt to a future that may not happen. It's just a natural process.

... all fair enough ... but it doesn't explain either the origin of life ... nor its diversity.

Evolution explains the NS of pre-existing genetic diversity ... but it doesn't explain the origin of the diversity, in the first place.

i.e. Evolution explains the survival of the fittest ... but it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest, in the first place.

The fatal flaws of evolution are explained here:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=031swKKakB0

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If J C and catallus's posts aren't enough for a swing of the banhammer, I don't know what are.

The thread is proceeding with civil reasoned debate on all sides, as far as I can see.

Civil reasoned debate includes robust challenges to ideas including reasonable conclusions to be drawn from those ideas.

J C

marieholmfan wrote: »

Surely one can be a creationist while accepting that the universe seems to be 14 billion years old (to humans).

One can ... and they're called Old Earth Creationists.

endacl

J C wrote: »

One can ... and they're called Old Earth Creationists.

So many different ways to say 'wrong'...

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... all fair enough ... but it doesn't explain either the origin of life ... nor its diversity.

Evolution explains the NS of pre-existing genetic diversity ... but it doesn't explain the origin of the diversity, in the first place.

i.e. Evolution explains the survival of the fittest ... but it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest, in the first place.

The fatal flaws of evolution are explained here:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=031swKKakB0

A few of us pointed out the flaws in that video a couple of days ago, but to sum up a few of the key points since you might have missed it.

1) He isn't a relevant authority. That doesn't make it wrong in itself, but it raises some questions. To make a comparison, if a physics professor was speaking about a high profile court case, you'd think "ok, he's probably a smart guy, but what does a physics professor know about this case that your regular Joe on the street wouldn't?" The guy is a law professor, which I don't think the video mentions. Funny that.

2) He's wrong about the fossil record. Our knowledge of the fossil record has increased dramatically since Darwin's time.

3) His insinuation that our knowledge of evolutionary biology is solely extrapolated from Darwin's finches is wildly off the mark. They aren't even the only species we see a similar effect in, not to mention:

4) This is key: he completely ignores the molecular data. I wonder why.

Those are just the points I have most issue with personally. I'm sure there are plenty more flaws in his argument.

J C

Vivisectus wrote: »

Well, yes I do? Say what you want about creationists: once they find an idea they like, they hang on to it come hell or high water (haha) no matter what you can actually observe in reality.

That's the Human failing of bias ... and everyone is potentially subject to its 'charms'.
Just talk to anybody who is a fan of a particular football club, politician, singer ... and see how they react to objective evidence that the object of their desires isn't what they think it is.
... similar bias can exist within any Human endeavor ... including science ... and it accounts for much of the heat (as distinct from the light) that happens (on both sides) when the evolution/creation issue is debated.

Knasher

J C wrote: »

Evolution explains the NS of pre-existing genetic diversity ... but it doesn't explain the origin of the diversity, in the first place.

Of course it does. Mutations, which as your video points out are just imperfections in how genetic code is transferred during reproduction, is a perfectly adequate explanation.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

A few of us pointed out the flaws in that video a couple of days ago, but to sum up a few of the key points since you might have missed it.

1) He isn't a relevant authority. That doesn't make it wrong in itself, but it raises some questions. To make a comparison, if a physics professor was speaking about a high profile court case, you'd think "ok, he's probably a smart guy, but what does a physics professor know about this case that your regular Joe on the street wouldn't?" The guy is a law professor, which I don't think the video mentions. Funny that.

He brings the logic of a legal mind to the issue. Basically, we are trying to establish the truth from the evidence ... which is essentially a legalistic process.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

2) He's wrong about the fossil record. Our knowledge of the fossil record has increased dramatically since Darwin's time.

Our knowledge of the fossil record has increased allright ... and that is the point. Darwin argued that the incomplete knowledge of the fossil record was the reason why no examples of the 'gradualism' essential to his theory were found. He predicted that as more fossils were discovered that the 'gaps' would be filled and gradualism would be seen. More fossils have been discovered allright ... but 'sudden appearance' (with no intermediates) and 'stasis' (with no significant change) is the unbroken rule.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

3) His insinuation that our knowledge of evolutionary biology is solely extrapolated from Darwin's finches is wildly off the mark. They aren't even the only species we see a similar effect in, not to mention:

The point Philip makes is that all of the examples of 'evolution in action' involves minor changes in phenotype within species using pre-existing genetic diversity - or damage to this diversity.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

4) This is key: he completely ignores the molecular data. I wonder why

The molecular data is the most damning evidence of all against spontaneous evolution. We find that genetic information is highly complex functional and specified ... the kind of information that is easily damaged by any random change to its structure ... and impossible to devise, in the first place without an intelligent input to choose the correct specific combination of molecules for functionality from an effective infinity of non-functional combinatorial space.

J C

Knasher wrote: »

Of course it does. Mutations, which as your video points out are just imperfections in how genetic code is transferred during reproduction, is a perfectly adequate explanation.

It isn't ... genetic information is observed to be perfect or almost perfect ... and it is degraded rapidly if any changes are made to it.
Its like all other CFSI ... for example the CFSI in a computer programme. If random changes are made to the source code improvements don't occur ... but instead it rapidly degrades functionality ... to the point of catastrophic failure.

gladrags

"i.e. Evolution explains the survival of the fittest ... but it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest, in the first place."

Darwin never implied otherwise.

You make a good point,evolution you could say,begins at a certain point.

As does for example,the beginning of life,the formation of the universe.

This is when we are in unknown territory.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

He brings the logic of a legal mind to the issue. Basically, we are trying to establish the truth from the evidence ... which is essentially a legalistic process.

That's really clutching at straws. I'm not trying to claim he isn't an intelligent man, just that he's not going to have the same understanding of the biological processes as, well, a biologist.

Our knowledge of the fossil record has increased allright ... and that is the point. Darwin argued that the incomplete knowledge of the fossil record was the reason why no examples of the 'gradualism' essential to his theory were found. He predicted that as more fossils were discovered that the 'gaps' would be filled and gradualism would be seen. More fossils have been discovered allright ... but 'sudden appearance' (with no intermediates) and 'stasis' (with no significant change) is the unbroken rule.

If that's his point, he didn't make it very well. Just to be clear here, the fossil record, while much more complete that it was in Darwin's time, is still very incomplete. He made some comment about people not being able to find evidence of evolution despite trying their best. Look up, for example, Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega.

The point Philip makes is that all of the examples of 'evolution in action' involves minor changes in phenotype within species using pre-existing genetic diversity - or damage to this diversity.

And the point he ignores is that these changes occur over an incomprehensible time scale.

The molecular data is the most damning evidence of all against spontaneous evolution. We find that genetic information is highly complex functional and specified ... the kind of information that is easily damaged by any random change to its structure ... and impossible to devise, in the first place without an intelligent input to choose the correct specific combination of molecules for functionality from an effective infinity of non-functional combinatorial space.

No, I mean the real molecular evidence, not a string of creationist buzzwords that make no real sense. I'd suggest looking into molecular phylogenetics to get an idea of the actual processes going on here.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

It isn't ... genetic information is observed to be perfect or almost perfect ... and it is degraded rapidly if any changes are made to it.
Its like all other CFSI ... for example the CFSI in a computer programme. If random changes are made to the source code improvements don't occur ... but instead it rapidly degrades functionality ... to the point of catastrophic failure.

Can you explain what the bit I've bolded means exactly please?

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

i.e. Evolution explains the survival of the fittest ... but it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest, in the first place.

The fittest arrived by surviving. Obvious, no?

J C wrote: »

He brings the logic of a legal mind to the issue. Basically, we are trying to establish the truth from the evidence ... which is essentially a legalistic process.

The job of a lawyer is not to establish the truth, but to win the argument. He is not a geologist or a biologist. He attempts to win the argument (about ID) by the twisting of words and their meanings. He says so himself. He is nothing more than a sophist.