Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 193. (Read 108046 times)

The theory of evolution is the only theory right now and it is backed up by a lot of evidence. Maybe there are parts of it that are wrong but there is no other theory that explains what evolution explains. In all these years people have tried to dismiss the evolution theory but no one has ever come up with something else. So far the theory of evolution is the best we have and it's working, as I previously said, it already has been applied to numerous things. It's useful.

Science must not become another religion to get into a crusade against other religion

Need to stick to facts and experimental protocol, and being humble with the subject of study



https://youtu.be/Gs6XkA8fVec and then, just when you think you figured the whole blood damn thing up, death show up. And bla bla bla.

This is the kind of article who demonstrate how intricate this stuff of evolution is with theories of "intelligent design".

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

A much more difficult and confusing situation would arise if we could, some day, establish a theory of the phenomena of consciousness, or of biology, which would be as coherent and convincing as our present theories of the inanimate world. Mendel's laws of inheritance and the subsequent work on genes may well form the beginning of such a theory as far as biology is concerned. Furthermore,, it is quite possible that an abstract argument can be found which shows that there is a conflict between such a theory and the accepted principles of physics. The argument could be of such abstract nature that it might not be possible to resolve the conflict, in favor of one or of the other theory, by an experiment. Such a situation would put a heavy strain on our faith in our theories and on our belief in the reality of the concepts which we form. It would give us a deep sense of frustration in our search for what I called "the ultimate truth." The reason that such a situation is conceivable is that, fundamentally, we do not know why our theories work so well. Hence, their accuracy may not prove their truth and consistency. Indeed, it is this writer's belief that something rather akin to the situation which was described above exists if the present laws of heredity and of physics are confronted.


https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html

Indeed, to generalize, almost all of our experiences in this world do not fall under the domain of science or mathematics. Furthermore, we know (at least we think we do) that from Godel's theorem there are definite limits to what pure logical manipulation of symbols can do, there are limits to the domain of mathematics. It has been an act of faith on the part of scientists that the world can be explained in the simple terms that mathematics handles. When you consider how much science has not answered then you see that our successes are not so impressive as they might otherwise appear.


4. The evolution of man provided the model. I have already touched on the matter of the evolution of man. I remarked that in the earliest forms of life there must have been the seeds of our current ability to create and follow long chains of close reasoning. Some people [11. H. Mohr, Structure and Significance of Science, Springer-Verlag, 1977.] have further claimed that Darwinian evolution would naturally select for survival those competing forms of life which had the best models of reality in their minds-"best" meaning best for surviving and propagating. There is no doubt that there is some truth in this. We find, for example, that we can cope with thinking about the world when it is of comparable size to ourselves and our raw unaided senses, but that when we go to the very small or the very large then our thinking has great trouble. We seem not to be able to think appropriately about the extremes beyond normal size.


And if evolution has to be predicted has a linear system, it also need to take in account natural events, physics because nature is made to understand physics and deal with physical problem, with geometry to understand cosmic cycles, etc.

Even if dna is to be considered as informations system like the article I posted before, it should become easy by some kind of statistic or regression to find the model of evolution. But no such model exists today. And they are crunching this one, but no "law" really emerge from it.

If a model would emerge, it would also incorporate the evolution of climate, of geology, of asteroid, volcano eruptions etc to account for the progression.


I dont have the biology of consciousness anymore, I lent it to someone, but they explain well the problematics involved to find a good model for evolution.

Maybe I will try to find the good part in google.

Well it is true that we don't know exactly how every organ formed. For example there is good research on how the human eye evolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye) Even if we don't know specifically how everything formed that doesn't disprove evolution. We also don't know what gravity is exactly, we know how it works or how to calculate it but we don't really know why is there. The problem with this thread is that is called evolution is a hoax which would mean something like scientists deliberately made up this theory to lie to people for some reason. I know you don't believe that and it's always good to be skeptical about anything but most people here are uneducated about this matter and simply believe in god instead.

If evolution is the process of building human brain, we are mostly clue less about the whole thing.

But that doesn't mean anything. It took a long time to get where we are. Every animal started as simple cells and eventually became more and more complex to the point of what we are now.

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/turkey-removes-darwins-theory-evolution-school-curriculum/

Yes I believed that it is a hoax. As you can see now is there any Monkey guy who is close to human intelligence. SO I believed it is a hoax.

Evolution is no hoax. We are related to the ape I think we are separated by a few genes.

God is more a concept than anything.

He doesnt threat of anything.

No need for a religion to suffer on earth and deal with consequences of actions.

Actually read what jesus say of those who cast stones. He never avocate punishment, but forgiving.

He even say some thief are ok if they are in necessity.

Here is a scientific fact that all scientists agree on :

The number of potential connection between all neurons in the brain is more than the number of particle in the universe.

There is no object known to mankind that reach anywhere near this level of complexity.

And it's not talking about a whole complete living organism fully autonomous, auto reproductive, carrying evolution, adaptive to all circonstance, selecting good partner, etc.

No engineers on earth can build something even approaching this. By far.

A few things that made me certain religion was fake. The first was If there was a god and he spoke to man, would he not explain some things to us. For instance, the world is round not flat. Secondly, would he not give some explanation to how many planets there were?

Then I have to consider how he actually treated man. Instead of saying do not steal because it is wrong. He used hell as a threat.In today's society, some could argue he uses mental abuse to dictate his belief system on others. Threats of violence and pain.

Lastly, when I consider homosexuality. I am nowhere near gay. Have no friends or family that are. But who I am to judge or take away enjoyment from another person. If it makes you happy and does not hurt anyone else. JUST DO IT. This has taken me along time to relize. I have not always thought that way. One day I thought to myself, what if I were gay. Once you place yourself in someone's situation, your beliefs change quickly.

I Live a good life. Never lie cheat steal or hurt people. Not out of fear. Simply because I am intelligent enough to know better.

If someone does not steal only out of fear from god, they are not a decent person.

The pb for me is religion is a bit double meaning.

There is the first meaning which has to do with the ethymology of "religare" creating bond between people, and it's the cultural / social aspect which is the aspect that is closer to brainwashing, or at least social conditioning.

It's the bad aspect of religion.

But there is the philosophical aspect of it, and in itself it's not really encouraging brainwashing, on the contrary. It touch the infinity, what is beyond us.

I dont know the coran enough, but in the bible it's very clear it take on the basis of socrates, plato, and dont encourage brainwashing at all, on the contrary.

Jesus depicted in the bible is not a good case for showing blind following of social norm

Im sure digging a bit back into it, it's very easy to show how the bible is totally the best anti brainwashing tool available. And it's very explicit at that.

And actually I come from completely atheists background, I have origin from spain civil war, I cannot say religion is very praised in my familly lol

I started to get interested into this in my 30 maybe, and there are still very deep things to learn from religious books.

If you study faith from the social aspect, you are missing a bit the point. Or you are just seeing the lowest part of it who is not very interesting.

But that's very complex topic to study how belief play with social integration etc But cant say the origin of religion is about integrating whatever social norm you are born into.

And I gotcha all the brainwashed "pseudo Christian " or muslim based on their own book that most of them dont even really read or understand.

There is very few atheists great scientists actually.

Those of you who disbelieve evolution because it disputes your religious beliefs. Religion is the single most commonly used form of brainwashing know to man. You are raised to believe so you do. If you were first told about religion after your twenties, you would clearly see what a hoax it truly is. I have studied many faiths. All are absolutely laughable once you study their individual belief systems. Christian say Muslims are going to hell.Muslims say Christians are. Both sides swear they are right. However, both sides have committed unimaginable atrocities in the name of their savior. If there were a god I am sure he would not want you to kill nonbelievers.there is not. That is as much a fact of life as the world is round.
Live your life. Be free and be happy.

Most scientists today will agree we understand very little about all this.

Evolution is kinda umbrella term , it's not really a "fact" but 2 billions years of twisted evolution responding to complex environmental factors, with going back and forth, dolphin were once land creature, then went back to ocean.

Darwin cant explain why dinosaurus crashed, it's entierely environnemental.

Evolution is by product of many things.

Darwin was a very smart guys,  and like Freud he is often very misunderstood, and lot of their research and idea are not really published with mainstream academics .

But still the amount of what can be explained by simplistic interpretation of darwin is very limited.

There is really a lot to this topic lol

Even with how dna metylation works, it show the organismes can block some genes "live" due to environmental condition.

The portion of coding dna used will vary depending on condition.

Maybe if it's cold you will grow more thick hairs.

Digestive system adapt to food, to find the good enzymes etc

Imune system is very complex too. And adapt "live" to condition.

Even genetician who works on plants know how weird this whole evolution stuff really is

Some genes can start to get expressed / used at some point without they really know how or why, it's really not so simple

And it's very weird to explain how the whole chain took place, as we call it "evolution" it show a constant progression toward "something", more intelligence etc. And it's almost like the first cell already knew where it was aimed at, to create the good chain of transformation allowing increasing complexity.

We dont even really understand what the purpose of all this.

There is a good book on this "What is life". Not so easy question

We evolved from this EARTH ..Yes or no ?..
It makes no difference if we have 100 different theories to how we evolved the fact is we
EVOLVED from this EARTH ..
And that's why we have evolution theories..IT'S FACT we evolved from this EARTH..

Now you can theorise all you want on how we EVOLVED but we ended up a human because the EARTH made us that way..

Evolution was to basically prove that GOD never made man and that the earth wasn't made in 6 days..
Because of this study we have many many sciences that have come from finding out that god
never made man or the EARTH..

DARWIN ..One of the greatest humans that ever lived WHY because he gave his time for
HUMANITY..

And just look at all the sciences because of this great human..
In my eyes he is one of the greatest humans ever..

Well that's your opinion, however most scientists accept evolution as a fact. There is really no other theory proposed a part from crazy creationists. It is the best scientific theory right now and it works. If it works, it's good. Yes, obviously there are a lot of things we don't know but that doesn't mean evolution is false. I see that you are not a religious nut and you do accept the basics of the theory. As I said, there really is nothing else proposed to explain how animals or plants got to where they are.

Yes im not denying completely the principle.

It can be witnessed on certain species, like some species who disapear and adapt to some conditions. Like some birds develop certain kind of beak to adapt to vegetation, or some butter fly who adapt in color to environnement. Or species who vanish because of change in environment.

But even really we barely understand anything at dna. 80% of junk dna, and even the 20% it's more complex than isolating coding genes one by one to form a protein.

It's still a level of complexity way ahead of what we can really understand today.

Im not denying there is still solid beam of evidence to show how life evolve to adapt environmental condition.

In biology of consciousness they explain very well the complexity involved with studying evolution as a whole. We dont even have the proper framework for this. It's why I posted the article on neural Darwinism before, to show already on the formation of brain and nervous system, how it evolve to linguistic, semantic, art, etc.

Even the imune system is in incredible complexity.

And that's just scratching the surface.

 It's becoming increasingly a field that dig in all area, from physics, geology, biology etc

There is no hard science on this.

 

Fair enough. Here is the problem with what you want. We cannot always have experiments or recreate anything. Scientifically we know how planets are formed or what a black hole is however we can't recreate any of it. We can however make predictions about evolution. Disproving evolution first requires to look at what the theory predicts and see where it can be shown to make incorrect predictions. It is easy to be side-tracked by specifics of the theory, such as individual evolutionary pathways of certain features, and confuse these with what would falsify the overall theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, many creationists do this whenever a new discovery is made in biology that causes scientists to rethink some pieces of evolution. To avoid this problem, it is best to be clear what evolution is. It is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur, and many features of evolution appear given only these three guiding principles.[3] If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.

Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Cosmologists make precise predictions about what will happen to the universe in 20 billion years’ time. Biologists struggle to predict how a few bacteria in a dish might evolve over 20 hours. Some claim that this lack of precise predictive power means evolution is not scientific.

However, what matters in science is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right. Meteorologists don’t reject chaos theory because it tells them it is impossible to predict the weather 100% accurately – on the contrary, they accept it because weather follows the broad patterns predicted by chaos theory.

The difficulty in predicting the course of evolution arises partly because organisms are free to evolve in quite different directions. The descendants of a single species of ape living in Africa around 6 million years ago, for instance, ended up taking rather different paths; those that eventually led to gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Such splits in populations might stem from tiny initial variations.

The evolutionary paths these apes took might also have been influenced by changes in the climate. As this shows, the history of life on this planet has been partly shaped by chance events. If an asteroid hadn’t wiped out the dinosaurs, the first intelligent life form might have been very different, if indeed human-like intelligence had evolved at all. If we could wind the clock back 4 billion years and let life evolve all over again, its course might be very different.

Perhaps the most striking prediction in biology was made in 1975 by entomologist Richard Alexander. After studying the evolution of eusocial insects such as termites, he predicted that some burrowing rodents in the tropics might have evolved the same eusocial system – as later proved to be the case with the naked mole-rat.

Evolutionary theory can and increasingly is being put to more practical use. For instance, if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, it is clear that resistant insect strains are likely to evolve. What is less obvious is that you can slow this process by growing regular plants alongside the GM ones, as was predicted and has turned out to be the case.

Many researchers developing treatments for infectious diseases now try to consider how resistance could evolve and find ways to prevent it, for instance by giving certain drugs in combination. This slows the evolution of resistance because pathogens have to acquire several mutations to survive the treatment.

You can see that evolution has many practical applications which really to me proves the truth of evolution

Jonathan blow exposed this problematic very well.

Saying we dont understand evolution doesnt mean being religious nut. It's just being honest with what we can really assert scientifically on the subject.

Darwin is like Freud, it's more philosophy than "hard science"

If I could understand this, I would postulate for Nobel Prize right now lol