Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Big Bad Voodoo

Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory

236 posts in this topic

jeeez...at this rate L, you will have 10k post in a couple of days...you seem to ignore a lot of info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jeeez...at this rate L, you will have 10k post in a couple of days...you seem to ignore a lot of info

Whats wrong in writting? This is called forum. And people wrote here. :st Dont worry about number of posts. Do you count? Make statistic? I have more free time then usualy so thats main reason of huge amount of my posts.

On second part of your post I must said that I dont follow you. Please show me what I ignored.

So far you should learnt that things arent what it seems to be. :yes:

Or you are simply against forums, and raising questions? Are you for suppression? Im not.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This puts me in mind of that time when these creationist's 'found' Noah's Ark and said that through carbon dating it was shown that the wood was 4000 years old.

So when science shows the age of the Earth that contradicts their view, they say the carbon dating is flawed but likewise, when it 'proves' or 'supports' their biblical story, they endorse it...

The Flu is one of the most common examples of evolution - it is constantly adapting and changing every year to deal with new anti-viral's; plants and pesticides is another example.

Evolution is a fact because there is hard proof for it and it is observable, humans appearing from the ground a few thousand years ago isn't; sure all life began mysteriously, but over millions of years and 99% of all life that ever was is now gone - survival of the fittest.

And for the bull**** argument of "well there are still apes about so why aren't they evolving??"

Well that's because A- Evolution takes a LONG time and B- many factors decide the evolution of a species, one of them environment and it's safe to say that a change of environment for a number of apes, a change of lifestyle and so on so forth would (slowly) lead to their change, eventually leading to the discovery of fire and in effect, the ability to cook food and gain better nourishment which worked wonders for our bodies and brains, leading to increased intelligence and so on.

4.Also I heard that on some condition we can speed up evoultion?

For you.

http://news.national...-evolution.html

Edited by Sean93
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5.And most interesting to me is that there is one animal that lived in octopus kidney and we know that animal came from much complexed animal. Devolution?

No such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This puts me in mind of that time when these creationist's 'found' Noah's Ark and said that through carbon dating it was shown that the wood was 4000 years old.

So when science shows the age of the Earth that contradicts their view, they say the carbon dating is flawed but likewise, when it 'proves' or 'supports' their biblical story, they endorse it...

The Flu is one of the most common examples of evolution - it is constantly adapting and changing every year to deal with new anti-viral's; plants and pesticides is another example.

Evolution is a fact because there is hard proof for it and it is observable, humans appearing from the ground a few thousand years ago isn't; sure all life began mysteriously, but over millions of years and 99% of all life that ever was is now gone - survival of the fittest.

And for the bull**** argument of "well there are still apes about so why aren't they evolving??"

Well that's because A- Evolution takes a LONG time and B- many factors decide the evolution of a species, one of them environment and it's safe to say that a change of environment for a number of apes, a change of lifestyle and so on so forth would (slowly) lead to their change, eventually leading to the discovery of fire and in effect, the ability to cook food and gain better nourishment which worked wonders for our bodies and brains, leading to increased intelligence and so on.

4.Also I heard that on some condition we can speed up evoultion?

For you.

http://news.national...-evolution.html

No better place on earth as Croatian islands. Trust me.

But article doesnt explain how and why it happens.

No such thing.

Animal that live in kidney or devolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Animal that live in kidney or devolution?

Devolution. Evolution is the genetic change in populations of organisms over generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.DNA is chemical that works in envoirment, so I wonder what organism gene would build on different envorionment? On another planet.

2.What also is mysterious how some simple lifes like rice plant have more genes then complexed life forms like humans?

3.What is for junk DNA? I heard about fish that dont have junk DNA...

4.Also I heard that on some condition we can speed up evoultion?

5.And most interesting to me is that there is one animal that lived in octopus kidney and we know that animal came from much complexed animal. Devolution?

6.How genes know how to build organism?

7. Do any of you biologists here know concept of Gaia theory? If so what is your opinion on it.

1. We have a sample pool of one to work with, so we don't know what the alien equivalent of DNA would be.

2. Not really mysterious, no. Rice is actually very small, genome-wise, when compared to other things like corn and wheat. Why is it larger than humans? Probably because its been around for longer.

3. Right. Did you do any research on the "fish with no junk DNA"? Or did you just blindly accept something you wrote without reading any further into it? And what does junk DNA really have to do with anything? Over a huge stretch of evolutionary time, some DNA will become unneeded. Plus I'm willing to bet a large amount of what we write off as "junk" actually isn't.

4. Well, yeah. We drastically affected the evolution of wolves when we bred dogs.

5. No such thing as devolution. Again, do you have a name for this mysterious octopus-dwelling animal and research that it used to be "much more complex" (a dangerously nebulous term).

6. Do the research yourself. This is pretty well understood, and the info is out there.

7. Gaia hypothesis has no effect on evolutionary theory.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. No such thing as devolution. Again, do you have a name for this mysterious octopus-dwelling animal and research that it used to be "much more complex" (a dangerously nebulous term).

Didn't know about that either, but I think this is meant:

Rhombozoans, sometimes called Dicyemida in some older texts are parasites of cephalopods (Octopus and Squid), they live in the animals kidneys. Rhombozoans have a more complicated life cycle. Their basic body plan is a long thin central cell, called an axial or tube cell, surrounded by a coat of smaller ciliated cells which are arranged spirally around the axial cell. Some authors equate this with a two cell-layer body plan.

http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/mesozoa.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the first one that bring bible and creationism in thread.

Just an observation. You did not post this video debunking Darwin in the Nature or Environment sub-forums, you posted it under Spirituality vs Skepticism. Therefore it seems like you are asking a theological question. I don't know what or any religion you have (do you worship Osiris?) but if Darwin was wrong, and special creation is correct then that leaves a big theological problem. Why would an omnibenevolent God purposefully create things like the ebola virus or carnivores in general?

This question has been around for thousands of years and we still do not have an acceptable answer. Darwin was disturbed by the implication of millions of years of pain, suffering and death that macro-evolution entailed, but published his findings nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first the video seems to sound interesting in that our methods of carbon and radioactive testing is not always accurate. I suppose even radioactivity can only go so far.

Carbon dating is currently reliable to about 40,000 years. There are efforts under way to extent that to about 60,000 years, but it hasn't been accomplished, yet. At 11,600 years BP (the end of the Younger Dryas), it is accurate to +/- 300 years. 40,000 years is the Yarmouth Interglacial, so we can only reach about halfway through the Great Ice Age.

I have used carbon dating on soil profiles. They weren't very old, only dating back a little over 400 years - at that short a time span, the error is only two or three years.

When you have tree rings available, they are accurate to the year and sometimes we can even tell the date of a storm to within a few weeks. They're the way to go, if you can get them. The oldest series obtained from one tree goes back 5300 years. The oldest tree ring single-species chronologies are the Methusaleh Walk and White Mountain bristlecone chronologies which reach back 8400 years. The European oak chrnonlogy reaches back 17,000 years - into the ice age and only about 2000 years shy of the Last glacial Maximum.

BTW: The Church of the Nativity has been ring-dated. Every single one of the dates was between about 1030 and 1430. But don't fret - the church underwent extensive repair and renovation in those years, so the ring-dates were all from the repairs, not the originals.

The bristlecones show a climate disturbance in 2807 - 2802 BC that may be "Noah's Flood." I plan to do some work on that if I ever find the time.

The eruption of Thera that ended the Minoan Civilization and brought down the Egyptian 13th Dynasty (and provided the biblical authors with stories of burning hail falling from the sky, days of darkness and some of the Ten Plagues of Egypt) occurred in the fall/winter of 1629/1628 BC. That was determined via tree rings.

There's also a severe drought in the 1340s BC that is a likely candidate for the "seven years of famine" that Joseph predicted, again, identified through tree rings.

So science and biblical accounts don't necessarily disagree. However, the Bible got things a little garbled - especially the dates.

HOWEVER...for example, when he talks about the formation of coal and how timber can be turned to coal in a short amount of time under great pressure, it sounds somewhat plausible...I can consider this aspect but when he then tries to apply this same reasoning to elements that are far harder and denser such as various rocks then I start to have a problem.

Peat forms in highly-acid, oxygen-free environments such as occur in many bogs. Wood rarely forms peat - it is usually sphagnum. Peat formation has taken as little as 17 years, but is usually centuries longer. Remains of human dwellings have been found belwo twenty feet of Irish peat.

100,000-year old undecomposed, unfossilized wood has been recovered from the cypress-bog that was where Washington, DC now stands. We can build a record of the weather and climate of the time, but because the chronology can't be anchored to the modern callendar, we don't know which years those are.

The University of Missouri is trying to build a tree-ring callendar to cover the entire Holocene. They'll need about 700 tree trunks to do it; have a little over a hundred at the moment.

A 6000-year old earth is going to have trouble explaining 8400-year old trees, not to mention 10,000 or 15,000 year-old ones. And lets' not even bring up Clone Pando for fear of giving the guy apoplexy.

At one point it seemed that some scientists were even wondering how life could have formed on our planet so soon after it was formed until they began to realize that carbon dating can only go back so far; I figure that our planet is far older than the general 4.6 billion years. I would wager that it is closer to 10 or even 20 billion years old...maybe even older.

The folks who developed carbon dating knew its limits. It is a logarithmic decay curve which means it is limited by the accuarcy to which you can measure concentrations of the various carbon isotopes. Again, 40,000 years is the current limit - 60,000 maybe someday.

I agree that Darwins theories have been refined and fine tuned but he did lay the basic ground work and this is how it is for all theories. Once the foundation is confirmed then we can go to work developing and refining it. All theories evolve this way (excuse the pun) and they must.

Darwin laid that out 160 years ago. Evoltuonary biology today is world's beyond what the fundies are trying to argue against. In one sense, they're right: much of what Darwin wrote has been superceded. It's just that they haven't figured that out yet.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We have a sample pool of one to work with, so we don't know what the alien equivalent of DNA would be.

2. Not really mysterious, no. Rice is actually very small, genome-wise, when compared to other things like corn and wheat. Why is it larger than humans? Probably because its been around for longer.

3. Right. Did you do any research on the "fish with no junk DNA"? Or did you just blindly accept something you wrote without reading any further into it? And what does junk DNA really have to do with anything? Over a huge stretch of evolutionary time, some DNA will become unneeded. Plus I'm willing to bet a large amount of what we write off as "junk" actually isn't.

4. Well, yeah. We drastically affected the evolution of wolves when we bred dogs.

5. No such thing as devolution. Again, do you have a name for this mysterious octopus-dwelling animal and research that it used to be "much more complex" (a dangerously nebulous term).

6. Do the research yourself. This is pretty well understood, and the info is out there.

7. Gaia hypothesis has no effect on evolutionary theory.

1. No. You misunderstood me. How DNA of us would developed in different enviroment such as alien planet, where are different rules, such as gravity, ozone etc.

2. That doesnt make sense at all. What if longer exist? There is quite older simpler spicies then humans yet they dont have more genes then we.

3. Im not sure that in DNA is any junk material. I think that we dont know purpose of it we called it junk. What junk DNA have to do with anything? Well actually everything.

4. No I heared that special conditions can speed up evolution. Such as that lizard case in Croatia island. So what is driving force for speeding up evolution? Or witness jumping evolution.

5. I dont know name of that organism. If I knew all that what I asked I would be proffessor of biology. So I dont know is that animal what Abramelin linked. But Im positive what I heard that biologists talked.

6. Actually it isnt. I think if you cant explain it then you dont know too. I can answer on all mysteries on this forum with your answer. Do your research. We know all. It kills dialgoues.

7. Wrong. It is slightly different. Earth is superorganism. Second life create enviroment not other way around.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No. You misunderstood me. How DNA of us would developed in different enviroment such as alien planet, where are different rules, such as gravity, ozone etc.

2. That doesnt make sense at all. What if longer exist? There is quite older simpler spicies then humans yet they dont have more genes then we.

3. Im not sure that in DNA is any junk material. I think that we dont know purpose of it we called it junk. What junk DNA have to do with anything? Well actually everything.

4. No I heared that special conditions can speed up evolution. Such as that lizard case in Croatia island. So what is driving force for speeding up evolution? Or witness jumping evolution.

5. I dont know name of that organism. If I knew all that what I asked I would be proffessor of biology. So I dont know is that animal what Abramelin linked. But Im positive what I heard that biologists talked.

6. Actually it isnt. I think if you cant explain it then you dont know too. I can answer on all mysteries on this forum with your answer. Do your research. We know all. It kills dialgoues.

7. Wrong. It is slightly different. Earth is superorganism. Second life create enviroment not other way around.

1. No idea. Probably very differently, or not at all.

2. Yes it does. Grains have a larger genome because they've been around for longer. A larger genome does not indicate a more complex species.

3. Yep, as I said, much of what we call "junk" probably isn't. One day, we'll find out what its for.

4. What "lizard case"?? Can you stop flippantly mentioning half remembered things and actually post some references?! And what the hell is "jumping evolution"??

5. Well Abramelin seemed to find it fine. I can't find any references to it "evolving from a more complex species" however, and even if it did this wouldn't be a problem.

6. We know how genetics works so that the instructions in DNA manufacture parts of an organism. The research is out there. Read it.

7. Maybe I need to put it another way: the Gaia Hypothesis does not impact on the validity of Evolutionary Theory.

I thought you were supposed to be "shattering the myths of Darwin's theory", rather than just building a list of Arguments from Ignorance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Emma_Acid

3. So you admit that we dont kno 99% of human genom? Isnt that in contradiction what you just wrote under 6. (We know how genetics works...) ?

4. Im sorry I thought that you did read link from post 154. Evolution isnt linear. Evolution do jumps. Lets go out on land. Lets go in air. Lets developed self awerness and intelligence.

5. How isnt a problem? How come that something can evolve complex form into simplest form of life?

6. Again your statements are in contradiction. First you admit that we dont know 98/99 % of our genom then you say that there is explaination how genom know to built organism. Well my dear, that explaination have a hole. Hole is about 99% of that theory.

7. If Gaia theory is true it would effect very much on evolution theory. But you are right so far isnt prooven. But same as many ideas in history. Idea has to float around so that people can accept it. Humanity must be ready for ideas. Theory of evolution isnt at all Darwins theory. Humanity was just prepared for final punch. Many before him break ice.

Or took example Ptolemy universe. It was dominant theory for 1500 years. Science can be dead wrong. Time change things. Science is self correcting therefore what now seems as hypothesis tommorow can be a prooven fact.

About ignorance- Please show your manners. Act civil, polite and friendly. Im for conversation here not for redicule.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry the L. You asked to not make it personal and I have no intention of doing so. But the title you put in the video and the posts you've made in this thread is asking, almost screaming to be commented about.

The funny thing is the statements and questions you've made here are so typical. Such as "can a polar bear turn into a whale". These are so common. It's like the Kirk Cameron's crocaduck. The idea itself tells everyone that you have absolutely no clue what evolution is.

I suggest you start by really, I mean really studying whale evolution. Not from a UFO site. Really study it. Find out where they came from. Then move on to other species evolution. I genuinely hope you do this. There was a time when I thought about this as you seem to. But since I enlightened myself with facts rather than fiction. The truth became evident.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry the L. You asked to not make it personal and I have no intention of doing so. But the title you put in the video and the posts you've made in this thread is asking, almost screaming to be commented about.

The funny thing is the statements and questions you've made here are so typical. Such as "can a polar bear turn into a whale". These are so common. It's like the Kirk Cameron's crocaduck. The idea itself tells everyone that you have absolutely no clue what evolution is.

I suggest you start by really, I mean really studying whale evolution. Not from a UFO site. Really study it. Find out where they came from. Then move on to other species evolution. I genuinely hope you do this. There was a time when I thought about this as you seem to. But since I enlightened myself with facts rather than fiction. The truth became evident.

Magicjax are you aware that Darwin claimed that polar bar can become a whale?

Btw- we moved from original questions. I developed thread starting with questions in post 151. So if you are really study evolution and become enlightened, as you claim, then be so kind and answer questions what others didnt achived to do. Thanks in advance. I realy want to see that true became evident. Im mean on your enlightment.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Emma_Acid

3. So you admit that we dont kno 99% of human genom? Isnt that in contradiction what you just wrote under 6. (We know how genetics works...) ?

4. Im sorry I thought that you did read link from post 154. Evolution isnt linear. Evolution do jumps. Lets go out on land. Lets go in air. Lets developed self awerness and intelligence.

5. How isnt a problem? How come that something can evolve complex form into simplest form of life?

6. Again your statements are in contradiction. First you admit that we dont know 98/99 % of our genom then you say that there is explaination how genom know to built organism. Well my dear, that explaination have a hole. Hole is about 99% of that theory.

7. If Gaia theory is true it would effect very much on evolution theory. But you are right so far isnt prooven. But same as many ideas in history. Idea has to float around so that people can accept it. Humanity must be ready for ideas. Theory of evolution isnt at all Darwins theory. Humanity was just prepared for final punch. Many before him break ice.

Or took example Ptolemy universe. It was dominant theory for 1500 years. Science can be dead wrong. Time change things. Science is self correcting therefore what now seems as hypothesis tommorow can be a prooven fact.

About ignorance- Please show your manners. Act civil, polite and friendly. Im for conversation here not for redicule.

So you're ignoring the first two points I see.

3. I did not say that we "dont kno 99% of human genom".

4. Evolution isn't linear, and neither does it perform "jumps". A species evolving from one that swims in the water to one that crawls on the land is not a "jump". Also, your use of the word "let's" seems to show that you think evolution has a will. It doesn't.

5. Well firstly, you haven't shown that is did evolve from "complex to the simplest" species, so asking how it can do it is a moot point. Secondly, the terms "complex" is, as I've said before, dangerously ambiguous.

6. No, I did not say we didn't know 98% of the human genome. I said that there was some junk DNA, and one day we might find out what it does. But we do still understand how genetics performs to construct different cells. This is not a mystery. You're just full of the straw man arguments today aren't you?

7. Oh dear, you're not getting me at all. The Gaia Hypothesis has no baring on the Evolutionary Theory. The theory is solid, and that evolution happens is one of the closet things we can label a "fact" in science. Sure, the development and stability of ecosystems must affect how life evolves, but this does not affect the Theory of Evolution as it stands today. Also, just because universal models that were believed for hundreds or thousands of years were shown to be wrong, that in no way means that every scientific model we have now has a chance of being wrong. Sorry, this just isn't true,

And look up "Argument from Ignorance". I wasn't calling you ignorant. An Argument from Ignorance is essentially "This isn't true because I don't understand it", which is the only argument you ever seem to come out with.

Magicjax are you aware that Darwin claimed that polar bar can become a whale?

Btw- we moved from original questions. I developed thread starting with questions in post 151. So if you are really study evolution and become enlightened, as you claim, then be so kind and answer questions what others didnt achived to do. Thanks in advance. I realy want to see that true became evident. Im mean on your enlightment.

Do you have a reference for Darwin saying that? Or are you just misquoting something as usual.

I think you mean: "given the right evolutionary pressures and enough time, a polar bear can evolve into a whale-like species". Which is true. But very different from what you said.

Secondly, we've answered your questions. You just either don't like or don't understand the answers. Not our fault.

Edited by Emma_Acid
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're ignoring the first two points I see.

3. I did not say that we "dont kno 99% of human genom".

4. Evolution isn't linear, and neither does it perform "jumps". A species evolving from one that swims in the water to one that crawls on the land is not a "jump". Also, your use of the word "let's" seems to show that you think evolution has a will. It doesn't.

5. Well firstly, you haven't shown that is did evolve from "complex to the simplest" species, so asking how it can do it is a moot point. Secondly, the terms "complex" is, as I've said before, dangerously ambiguous.

6. No, I did not say we didn't know 98% of the human genome. I said that there was some junk DNA, and one day we might find out what it does. But we do still understand how genetics performs to construct different cells. This is not a mystery. You're just full of the straw man arguments today aren't you?

7. Oh dear, you're not getting me at all. The Gaia Hypothesis has no baring on the Evolutionary Theory. The theory is solid, and that evolution happens is one of the closet things we can label a "fact" in science. Sure, the development and stability of ecosystems must affect how life evolves, but this does not affect the Theory of Evolution as it stands today. Also, just because universal models that were believed for hundreds or thousands of years were shown to be wrong, that in no way means that every scientific model we have now has a chance of being wrong. Sorry, this just isn't true,

And look up "Argument from Ignorance". I wasn't calling you ignorant. An Argument from Ignorance is essentially "This isn't true because I don't understand it", which is the only argument you ever seem to come out with.

Do you have a reference for Darwin saying that? Or are you just misquoting something as usual.

I think you mean: "given the right evolutionary pressures and enough time, a polar bear can evolve into a whale-like species". Which is true. But very different from what you said.

Secondly, we've answered your questions. You just either don't like or don't understand the answers. Not our fault.

Im not ignoring nothing. Show me what I ignored? Please Emma, lets stay friendly here. Because I cant see you, so I cant read non verbal messeges, I cant be sure for what Im gonna to say. I concluded from words you use and your style of posts. So this could contain errors. I think that you become agressive. You agressivly defend theory of evolution same as Church defended their views in history. No need for agression. I dont like suppression. If I concluded wrongly I apologozied. So again Im not ignoring anything. I ask valid questions.

3. True. You didnt say exactly we dont know 99% of human genom. You said that we dont know what is junk DNA. Allow me to inform you that junk DNA is 98/99% of human genom.

4. That isnt what my biology teacher thought us. I have been learnt that evolution made jumps. I see it as different schools. Just to let you know I have had two teachers they both claim same thing. Further I try to be creative in describing how jumps work. But nevertheless how do you know there isnt will? Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence. There are philosophers who claimed that everything has will. That we are will. That life is will. Plants. Microbes. Desire is ultimate force. Flower have will to grow. Nature is just blind to see it. Dont aware it like us. Everything want to be something.Striving is infinit. Sex is desire to create life.Romantic and love is trick of nature to ensure reproduction of spicies. We must survive and nature will do anything to continue it. Even generating feeling of love. Its Schopenhauer theory.

5. True. I didnt show it. But doesnt mean it isnt true. But I see your point and view. Can I re formulate my question to hypotithical question. If we found that one organism evolved from complexed life form to simpler life form would that change theory of evolution?

6. See under 3. Furthermore there isnt "some" junk as you kindly hinting. Its 98/99 % of human genom. Does theory you claim to be evident true describe how Electro Magnetism effect on DNA to built organism? I thought so. Its something science ignored for a while.

7. I never said that theory of evolution must be wrong. Just that science is self correcting so we can talk about different views. Suppression isnt "like" thing in science. May I quote Carl Sagan:

Suppression of uncomfortable ideas maybe common in religion or in politics but its not path of knowledge. And theres no place in it in endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from. And the history of our study shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often dead wrong and that fundemental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.

I defenetly dont have arguments from ignorance. Rather scientificly backed up, valid questions. Its your ignorance that you are dont aware of them.

You didnt answered on half questions. Especially about junk DNA, how to built organism, how we have condition to speed up evolution, to name a few. Beside these new I asked in this post.

Furthermore, read again what you just wrote about polar bear into whale part. I dont think I need to spent words on it.

Emma_Acid, I found you that you are great conversation partner. Please be aware that I dont have malicious intentions, hidden religious motives or corrupted view.

Because we sit on different side of tables that doesnt mean we cant argued. Maybe truth isnt on your side or mine. Maybe its in middle. Again nothing wrong being wrong.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi the L,

I hope you don't mind my injecting a question here. It may seem like you're being bombarded from many sides here, so I hope you take the time to answer this. I was just curious as to how you feel evolution impacts your belief in God? If evolution is true (or even if it's false) does it change your perception on who God is?

I know the thread topic is about Evolution, but I thought it would be nice to see the spiritual side of it and see how your beliefs tie in with your discussion. Thanks :tu:

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi the L,

I hope you don't mind my injecting a question here. It may seem like you're being bombarded from many sides here, so I hope you take the time to answer this. I was just curious as to how you feel evolution impacts your belief in God? If evolution is true (or even if it's false) does it change your perception on who God is?

I know the thread topic is about Evolution, but I thought it would be nice to see the spiritual side of it and see how your beliefs tie in with your discussion. Thanks :tu:

~ Regards, PA

Hi Paranoid Android!

I dont mind you ask question but you hit in my weakest spot. Because I dont have theory. I "only" have theories. I still didnt decide what is most likely scenario. But even those with 1% can be true. So its a hard question. Complex one. Evolution vs. God is has always be discussion. Spritiualism vs. Scepticism. Creationists vs. Evolutionists. But maybe doesnt work that way. Maybe its in between. Furthermore what God we talk about? You asked question ...who God is? Maybe we need to reformulate question What is God? Recently I heard that is question what Ancient Egyptians asked. Not who is but what is? Sadly I cant gave you logical answer on your answer. I like to think that Im still in process of learning. That Im still student. That I will grasp something close to truth. I know that we are part of Universe. Part of milky way and our solar system. We are star childs. In us is carbon. Carbon is made in stars. We have iron in blood. Iron is in our Earth. Most likely evolution is true. But Im sure we miss big picture. We miss big part. Im sure that we are universe rediscovering itself. But who,when,why,how I dont know. We have self awareness. We have curiosity. As Einstein said : Curiosity has own reason for existing. So in fact that you post here and seek for answers proove that you are not casual burger seller or scientists who prositute himself/herself to get money for next research.

So I have theories. But what I know for sure is that everything is right so you and I could live on Earth. That we are universe rediscovering itself. I know that there are forces, principles in nature, laws. That there is moral no matter what God you belive or either you believe in it. There is curiosity. Its hard to believe that we have curiosity for nothing. There is imagination. Powerfull tool. Reasoning.

We cant explain world just by reasoning. I know that we live in asymmetrical universe with symmetrical laws.

Spinoza God with no hands and white beard is interesting view. Will as driving force idea as I mentioned earlier is also nice one. But there arent all parts of puzzle.

I think that we need breaktrough in science to make a further step in progress. That breaktroguh didnt become alive because we divided our science. To make a breaktrough in physics we need breaktrough in mathemathics. Once people like Newton, Leonardo, Poincare study different parts of science. That the reason they have had genius insights. More and more we learn today we become more specialized and learn just one brench, then one leaf, then one tiny part of that leaf. And we miss all tree. We become experts of one tiny part of knowledge.

Imagine we have apple and you know one tiny slice of that apple. Thing is that we still dont know how big is apple. Did ancient knew about DNA? So who knows what brench of science can be born. Art, philosophy and science have same root. We cant do science without philosophy. In fact logic is brench of philosophy.

Here is my recent post:

Hm. I would have to check some info first to agree with you. But in generaly looking I agree with small correction.

Newton and Leibnitz invented calculus. In1684 Leibnitz published book about calculus,Newton claim that he invented calculus in 1666

But Principia was published in 1687 so...Leibnitz was in London before book and he met with members of English Royal society, Collins maybe gave Newton documents.

Yes intuition is crucial as Einstein said "Only valuble thing is intuition." But I have different view how to improve modern science. By meditation. But thats a whole new thread. And not some mumbo jumbo meditation. But scinetifcly prooven method of meditation which help us to achive better results.

Also what I like to do whenever I do something what is matter to me is something I called Poincare strategy. Last universalists startegy. He was also genius with rare insights. He talked that our sub-consciousness solve all problems for us. We attack problems from all directions with consciousness and then wait when subconsciousness tap our shoulder. He used this tactic. One day he steped out of bus and problem he thinks for months flashes in front of his eyes. Sub consciousness and meditation are keys for future science because consciousness cant deal with all data. Subconsciousness can. Also all studies and statistic confirm it. All point into that direction. Idea is floating around for a while. Soon or later we will made breaktrough there.

So many open questions. So I will try to sum it. We are young spicies. We are universe rediscovering itself.

And things are more interconnected then we are able to grasp it in this moment. There was time before Buddha and Jesus. So there was a time before Son of God. There are holes in almost every theory and hypothesis you take. Christianity, Hindusim, Islam and Budhism arent final faiths/religion. They are mortal same as civilizations. But I dont see them bad. Christhianity served us good. They didnt read spicies but they were not morons. History of christianity is history of intellect.

One who dont know role of Jesuits in todays knowledge dont know history at all.

In everyone of us lies genius. We just dont care about that genius in us or dont feed it. Dont caddle our talents. Often is that because we need to bring food on our table. Fact that we dont know answers on so many questions prooves me that we are just born. And to learn something we must act like students not teachers.

We have one universe and two physics. How? Because we are young. Simply as that. Even if Michael Cremo and Kali Yuga were right. We who live today on Earth are young.

Sorry if I disappointed you with my answer.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You agressivly defend theory of evolution same as Church defended their views in history.

I'm not sure what that comparison is supposed to imply...? If I seem aggressive its because I don't like the idea of people who aren't sure about a subject as important as evolution, coming onto a site like this and concluding there is something wrong with the theory because of misinformed posts they've read.

I ask valid questions.

Sorry, but you you also ignore valid answers.

3. True. You didnt say exactly we dont know 99% of human genom. You said that we dont know what is junk DNA. Allow me to inform you that junk DNA is 98/99% of human genom.

Not quite. We know that about 80% of the human genome has biological purpose (see the Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements Project / ENCODE). The phrase "junk DNA" is a bit out of date to be honest.

4. That isnt what my biology teacher thought us. I have been learnt that evolution made jumps. I see it as different schools. Just to let you know I have had two teachers they both claim same thing. Further I try to be creative in describing how jumps work. But nevertheless how do you know there isnt will? Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence. There are philosophers who claimed that everything has will. That we are will. That life is will. Plants. Microbes. Desire is ultimate force. Flower have will to grow. Nature is just blind to see it. Dont aware it like us. Everything want to be something.Striving is infinit. Sex is desire to create life.Romantic and love is trick of nature to ensure reproduction of spicies. We must survive and nature will do anything to continue it. Even generating feeling of love. Its Schopenhauer theory.

I think that what your biology teachers mean is that the difference between primitive life in the sea and warm blooded life on land is very great - but that doesn't mean that evolution makes "jumps". All evolution works the same, gradual way. There is no going backwards and no sudden leaps.

And what I am saying is that evolution does not have a will. It just doesn't. Its like asking if the sun is in a bad mood.

5. True. I didnt show it. But doesnt mean it isnt true. But I see your point and view. Can I re formulate my question to hypotithical question. If we found that one organism evolved from complexed life form to simpler life form would that change theory of evolution?

Good question. The problem here is, as I've noted, is that "complex" isn't a particularly useful word when talking about life. Think about this: a slug is just as evolved as a human. Now what does complexity have to do with this?

This isn't me dodging the question, as it is a good one - what I'm getting at is that the question might not make sense in the way you think it does.

6. See under 3. Furthermore there isnt "some" junk as you kindly hinting. Its 98/99 % of human genom. Does theory you claim to be evident true describe how Electro Magnetism effect on DNA to built organism? I thought so. Its something science ignored for a while.

I've addressed the "junk DNA" bit above.

If you are talking about the effect of electromagnetic fields on DNA, this has been found to be unwarranted.

7. I never said that theory of evolution must be wrong. Just that science is self correcting so we can talk about different views. Suppression isnt "like" thing in science. May I quote Carl Sagan:

Suppression of uncomfortable ideas maybe common in religion or in politics but its not path of knowledge. And theres no place in it in endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from. And the history of our study shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often dead wrong and that fundemental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.

That's all fine, as is the idea that we can overturn a millennia-old idea like a heliocentric universe with modern science. But this isn't going to happen with evolution. Period. And if that isn't what you meant when you brought up the overturning of scientific ideas, then what did you mean??

I defenetly dont have arguments from ignorance. Rather scientificly backed up, valid questions. Its your ignorance that you are dont aware of them.

You haven't asked anything that hasn't been asked and answered elsewhere a thousand times, sorry. You are arguing against the theory of evolution, and your entire argument is based on things you don't understand. This is an Argument from Ignorance. It sounds like a rude name for it, sorry, I didn't make it up.

You didnt answered on half questions. Especially about junk DNA, how to built organism, how we have condition to speed up evolution, to name a few. Beside these new I asked in this post

If I come across as being a bit short tempered, I'm sorry, but you are being very difficult. How DNA instructs the building of cells is relatively well understood, as now is the function of "junk DNA". You just need to do research.

And I don't get your "speed up evolution" thing. Evolution isn't a constant like the speed of light. Different elements will adapt and change at different rates. You're getting annoyed that the questions you ask aren't being answered, but a lot of them don't actually make sense.

Furthermore, read again what you just wrote about polar bear into whale part. I dont think I need to spent words on it.

You said "am I aware that Darwin said a polar bear could evolve into a whale?". I asked for a direct quote from Darwin, as I can't find one. I also point out that this is a question you asked on the first page of the thread.

I said that a polar bear, given the right environmental pressures, could evolve into a whale like species. It will not be "a bear turning into a whale". This doesn't happen. And until you understand this fundamental part of the argument, we're just going to go around in circles.

Emma_Acid, I found you that you are great conversation partner. Please be aware that I dont have malicious intentions, hidden religious motives or corrupted view.

Because we sit on different side of tables that doesnt mean we cant argued. Maybe truth isnt on your side or mine. Maybe its in middle. Again nothing wrong being wrong.

I didn't ever say you did have religious motives or corrupted views. But I do get annoyed when it is blatantly clear that someone isn't even trying to understand the answers presented to them, about one of the best understood areas of any science.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this guys doesn't get it...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason there is a nearly universal acceptance among scientists for the theory of evolution is that all the evidence thus far examined supports the theory — and none contradicts it. It’s not just the biological evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and DNA analysis. It’s also that the theory is consistent with other fields of science, such as geology, plate tectonics, astronomy, and physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that what your biology teachers mean is that the difference between primitive life in the sea and warm blooded life on land is very great - but that doesn't mean that evolution makes "jumps". All evolution works the same, gradual way. There is no going backwards and no sudden leaps.

He might be referring to punctuated equilibrium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I disappointed you with my answer.

You didn't disappoint. I must admit I don't "get" everything it is that you believe, but there is no disappointment in your answer. Despite the topic of this thread, the title of this board is Spirituality vs Skepticism, and I wanted to hear the Spiritual side of your thoughts as well as your views on science. That's all, and thanks for your answer :tu:

~ Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that what your biology teachers mean is that the difference between primitive life in the sea and warm blooded life on land is very great - but that doesn't mean that evolution makes "jumps". All evolution works the same, gradual way. There is no going backwards and no sudden leaps.

Evolution doesn't really jump, but sometimes it can look that way. The extinction of a large number of species followed by a surge of previously minor species will look like a "jump" in the fossil records. The fossil records don't directly record the process of Evolution so it can be confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.