Confident people...How or Why?

[cousinbasil]

Being of 1,

The problem people have with evolution is that it is very difficult for the human mind to imagine a series of millions of small changes that lead to higher complexity. What I like about the theory of evolution is that it explains how organisms NATURALLY diverge and change over time, without having to invoke the supernatural, or some sort of supernatural intervention, which has always been the enemy of science throughout the ages. Logical thoughts stops when you invoke the supernatural to explain how things arose. Cause-effect should never be violated in any explanation.

The problem people have with evolution is evidenced by this post. It is easy for the human mind to imagine a series of millions of small changes that lead to higher complexity. Just as it is easy for the human mind to imagine the fucking Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. All three things are imaginary.

But anyone with scientific grounding sees that matter does not do this on its own. Evolution does explain that organisms naturally diverge - when one assumes that life is given. But how did it begin, and what keeps it going? Why can it be traced backward in time only if one assumes the origins of species and life forms converge as one goes further back? Converge to what, may I ask? That is the question you and every other staunch evolutionist neatly avoids.

Your problem, Ryan, is that you label some lines of thought as supernatural, when there is no such thing. You think if someone believes there must be more to the explanation than mechanical evolution that the "supernatural" is being invoked. By so doing, you dismiss serious inquiry by others while avoiding it yourself. There is no supernatural - there is merely what happened. And if you know the first thing about entropy and thermodynamics in chemical and physical processes, you would know that life violates basic laws unless the presence of other factors is assumed.

Once again, matter does not arrange itself spontaneously without outside intervention. The ordering began the process of life on this planet; therefore, the intervention had to come from somewhere else. Once the unfolding of life began, it appears to propagate itself. What is supernatural about that?

If the highest form of life on the planet was the amoeba, it would still have required outside intervention to have evolved from the constituent compounds and elements. Yet life has not stopped there. If matter can now contemplate itself and inquire into its own origins, I submit evolution has a direction - if the time duration of life were represented by Manhattan, man's duration is represented by slime on a railing in the Bowery (metaphor not original with me.)

The is no magic, just facts.

[GodsDaughter1]

Being of 1,

The problem people have with evolution is that it is very difficult for the human mind to imagine a series of millions of small changes that lead to higher complexity. What I like about the theory of evolution is that it explains how organisms NATURALLY diverge and change over time, without having to invoke the supernatural, or some sort of supernatural intervention, which has always been the enemy of science throughout the ages. Logical thoughts stops when you invoke the supernatural to explain how things arose. Cause-effect should never be violated in any explanation.

The problem people have with evolution is evidenced by this post. It is easy for the human mind to imagine a series of millions of small changes that lead to higher complexity. Just as it is easy for the human mind to imagine the fucking Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. All three things are imaginary.

But anyone with scientific grounding sees that matter does not do this on its own. Evolution does explain that organisms naturally diverge - when one assumes that life is given. But how did it begin, and what keeps it going? Why can it be traced backward in time only if one assumes the origins of species and life forms converge as one goes further back? Converge to what, may I ask? That is the question you and every other staunch evolutionist neatly avoids.

Your problem, Ryan, is that you label some lines of thought as supernatural, when there is no such thing. You think if someone believes there must be more to the explanation than mechanical evolution that the "supernatural" is being invoked. By so doing, you dismiss serious inquiry by others while avoiding it yourself. There is no supernatural - there is merely what happened. And if you know the first thing about entropy and thermodynamics in chemical and physical processes, you would know that life violates basic laws unless the presence of other factors is assumed.

Once again, matter does not arrange itself spontaneously without outside intervention. The ordering began the process of life on this planet; therefore, the intervention had to come from somewhere else. Once the unfolding of life began, it appears to propagate itself. What is supernatural about that?

If the highest form of life on the planet was the amoeba, it would still have required outside intervention to have evolved from the constituent compounds and elements. Yet life has not stopped there. If matter can now contemplate itself and inquire into its own origins, I submit evolution has a direction - if the time duration of life were represented by Manhattan, man's duration is represented by slime on a railing in the Bowery (metaphor not original with me.)

The is no magic, just facts.

GodsDaughter says: Good post!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And if you know the first thing about entropy and thermodynamics in chemical and physical processes, you would know that life violates basic laws unless the presence of other factors is assumed.
.

Hahahaha. Imposter! Pretender! Since when do you know anything at all about science but some high school shit? Care to quote some credible sources on "how life violated basic laws" unless "other factors" (outside basic thermodynamics and physical laws, or was it weasel phrasing) would be assumed? Yeah, I thought so...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Did life mutate into trillions of species or not?

Apparently so... but lets say hundred millions if we go with the theory.

When cells are simple - they have magic, they can become highly evolved complex lifeforms. When you have an organized, highly evolved life form, it loses its magic and is subject to lateral gene transfer.

When you were a tiny clump of cells in the womb it took nine months to grow in this wonderful being. But this miracle is not enough for you to even consider what will happen with a clump of proto-cells in a less controlled and barely (or self)tuned environment for billions of years?

The theory (cough) of evolution is absolute nonsensical hocus pocus.

It's a theory man! So be a man, come up with a better one, and see if you can fill those holes. But you can't! You instead like to counter something from the armchair position just to fortify your own. This is the interesting thing you might want to address. Why a scientific theory which demonstrates so many miracles in detail for us all to explore would somehow wrong you and your beliefs....

[cousinbasil]

Hahahaha. Imposter! Pretender! Since when do you know anything at all about science but some high school shit? Care to quote some credible sources on "how life violated basic laws" unless "other factors" (outside basic thermodynamics and physical laws, or was it weasel phrasing) would be assumed? Yeah, I thought so...

And you know my educational background how, asshole?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Interesting article I encountered recently on the topic, more as demonstation of the many possible processes involved in evolution, some of which are not yet fully understood - as is generally admitted.

Evolution Of Biological Complexity Sparked By Errors In Protein Structure

The study, published in Nature, suggests that the random introduction of errors into proteins, rather than traditional natural selection, may have boosted the evolution of biological complexity .... "It's not an argument against selection, it's an argument for non-adaptive mechanisms opening up new evolutionary pathways that wouldn't have been there before"

[cousinbasil]

Diebert, just because you yourself are uneducated, don't assume everyone else is. What exactly are your credentials, anyway? Ha ha ha. Just like I thought...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And you know my educational background how, asshole?

I didn't claim to know the background but your reading and comprehensions skills are sub-par, for sure. Perhaps they used to be better?

Back to thermodynamics, you do know these laws apply to a closed system and therefore cannot be used to say anything about life unless it's defined as operating in a known closed system?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, just because you yourself are uneducated, don't assume everyone else is. What exactly are your credentials, anyway? Ha ha ha. Just like I thought...

Still waiting for you to back-up your scientific claims by bringing in people we can at least agree on to be educated and verified properly :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's much confusion about the concept of entropy, especially cropping up in discussions about life and evolution. One important thing to realize is that processes connected to life are defined as reducing local entropy at the expense of increasing environmental entropy. It doesn't "violate" anything this way.

Check out Gibbs free energy and biological evolution

Living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy. - Lehninger, Albert (1993). Principles of Biochemistry.

Here you also see a reference to John Avery and his 'Information Theory and Evolution' referring to "information content" of the Gibbs "free energy" (capacity or potential of a system) which enters "the biosphere from outside sources" and also: "the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived directly from the expression of the second law equation for connected non-equilibrium open systems". Of course one is free to call potential or "information content" from outside sources by many fancy names. It doesn't change the science.

Another article of possible interest: Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "the second law can describe evolution as an energy transfer process: natural selection tends to favor the random mutations that lead to faster entropy increases in an ecosystem. When written in integral form, the second law describes the principle of least action: motion, in general, takes the path of least energy."

[cousinbasil]

I didn't claim to know the background but your reading and comprehensions skills are sub-par, for sure. Perhaps they used to be better?

That's right, you know nothing. I will admit I may have forgotten more than you have ever known, however. I do have a degree in physics and have studied thermodynamics and statistical mechanics post-grad with a professor who was part of a Nobel winning team when he got his doctorate. To which you will say something stupid like it is then even more remarkable how little I comprehend. BTW, try to avoid using the expression "sub-par." Native English speakers know this is often used incorrectly to mean the opposite of what it literally says. Literally, "par" in means very good, and "sub-par" is even better.

Your problem, though, is that your own undestanding of science is superficial and without any firm theorestical base or training. It is evident in everything you copy and paste here and in many of the positions you take. I know when a GF contributor contradicts me in a reasoned manner - this is something you seldom, if ever, seem to do.

I would be tempted to classify you as one who knows a little about many things, but even this is proven not to be the case. You seem to consistently misunderstand even the simplest things, and you often cite and copy here things which undermine the very things you are attempting to assert.

Do you even know what a closed system is? A closed system, in the terms conventonally used in thermodynamic constucts, is one in which matter cannot be exchanged between the system and the environment. However, energy exchange can occur, and usually does---if it does not, the system is said to be isolated, not merely closed.

In mechanical engineering, the "system" is often a device auch as an engine or part of an engine. In physics, the system is often taken to be a conveneint collection of natural parts of the object or objects under investigation. That is, the system is what the scientist declares it to be so that theoretical arguments can be applied to it without contradiction.

From the Wikipedia link you provided:

In a popular 1982 textbook Principles of Biochemistry by noted American biochemist Albert Lehninger, it is argued that the order produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the disorder they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. In short, according to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."[9]

This proves you have misunderstood what I wrote. You are typical of many pseudo-intellectuals who lionize Darwin - your initial reaction is defensive, as if anyone who is not at least a neodarwinist must automatically be a member of the Spanish Inquisition.

My whole point rests on the fact in this quote. Why you cannot see that is beyond me. Every living organism, in order to maintain its own relative order, must do so at the expense of order in its environment. My point, dummie, is that these local areas of higher order exist and propagate. Once, there was a world without life. Now that same planet teems with local pockets of order which have appeared at the expense of their environment.

If these pockets appeared every day, independently of any others, things would be radically different. But they do not, and they never have. They are like brances of a tree, all converging to a trunk, to a point, as you go backwards in time. I am not claiming evolution did not happen, just that the form it has taken is not determined solely by environment, just as its very existence cannot be attributed to environment alone. I am defending it, you numbskull.

The first thing a reasonable analysis includes is a thorough examination of the facts. In this case, the simple fact is that spontaneous generation has never been observed. How then can it be postulated as the mechanism by which life appeared?

Another article of possible interest: Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "the second law can describe evolution as an energy transfer process: natural selection tends to favor the random mutations that lead to faster entropy increases in an ecosystem. When written in integral form, the second law describes the principle of least action: motion, in general, takes the path of least energy."

I will wager you have never solved a least-action Hamiltonian equation - you have probably never even seen one. Solving them turns out to be the easy part, setting them up to reflect the system unders consideration is where the harder skill comes in - one at which I admit my rust, and one you doubtless never had.

Diebert, you can criticize my thoughts all you want, but the more eductaed the person who reads your critiques is, the more painfully inadequately reasoned they will appear.

Oh, and feel free to think for yourself. That may help a bit.

[Beingof1]

Did life mutate into trillions of species or not?

Apparently so... but lets say hundred millions if we go with the theory.

When cells are simple - they have magic, they can become highly evolved complex lifeforms. When you have an organized, highly evolved life form, it loses its magic and is subject to lateral gene transfer.

When you were a tiny clump of cells in the womb it took nine months to grow in this wonderful being. But this miracle is not enough for you to even consider what will happen with a clump of proto-cells in a less controlled and barely (or self)tuned environment for billions of years?

Dude - that is called DNA coding transferred through RNA. Protein would just be a clump of carbon based amino acids without the code. Who designed the highly sophisticated and encrypted blueprint for the electro/chemical/mechanical closed system that is so advanced, it surpasses anything designed by the brightest engineers of humanity?

Random cause and effect? What a joke that has been played on the mind of millions of non thinking sheepel.

The theory (cough) of evolution is absolute nonsensical hocus pocus.

It's a theory man! So be a man, come up with a better one, and see if you can fill those holes. But you can't! You instead like to counter something from the armchair position just to fortify your own. This is the interesting thing you might want to address. Why a scientific theory which demonstrates so many miracles in detail for us all to explore would somehow wrong you and your beliefs....

The so called 'theory' does not deserve to be called a theory. It does not pass a single, solitary, scientific underpinning. It is just liked because it does away with anything but a mindless robotic existence. Evolution has zero - 0 - none - nada for evidence. It does not even make sense, for those of us that actually like to use logic.

I did Diebert.
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 44#p125413

I have a theory that is logical, can be experimented, duplicated, and can be falsified. Consciousness is an electromagnetic wave that contains the energy and information to pulse the genetic code and would result in dramatic and instant species transformation that the evidence points to.

There ya go - light = consciousness and the genetic code was downloaded from it.

If you want the whole theory:
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/threa ... sness?pg=1

[Beingof1]

Interesting article I encountered recently on the topic, more as demonstation of the many possible processes involved in evolution, some of which are not yet fully understood - as is generally admitted.

Evolution Of Biological Complexity Sparked By Errors In Protein Structure

The study, published in Nature, suggests that the random introduction of errors into proteins, rather than traditional natural selection, may have boosted the evolution of biological complexity .... "It's not an argument against selection, it's an argument for non-adaptive mechanisms opening up new evolutionary pathways that wouldn't have been there before"

You see - the nonsensical mumbo jumbo of the so called experts is babble and you just accept it without thinking it through for yourself. I know you are brighter than this Diebert. Mutations almost never 'take' in the general population of the species. 99 % of the time they result in a disadvantage for the life form. Here is just one of many gaping holes in the 'theory'.

Let me spell it out for you because you have a tendency of ignoring what is written. Mutations almost always result in a disadvantage and almost never result in being passed into heredity. Do you understand? The theory could not take place given Bayesian statistical analysis. The odds - given random cause and effect - could not and does not happen. It is like saying " If I bounce a ball against a wall and it penetrates the wall, this means all balls will always penetrate walls." I

I give this example because evolution has never been observed, not once, including all fossil records.


Let me see if I understand the article?
Mutations resulted in a "species" because they could not breed after the mutation with what had previously been something they could breed with.
You think this makes any sense at all?

They are trying to answer my objection that I have raised with many biologists. The one I gave Ryan. I came up with it so I am very versed in this subject Diebert. Let me state it again - it is my objection ( I did not read it in a book, I just thought it through and they are still scrambling).

This one:
How did one celled organisms evolve into plant and animal yet evolution is subject to strict lateral gene transfer?
How could millions of differing species evolve when they can not do that now?

This reveals the gigantic, epic, monumental flaw that is as big as a dark hole in the so called 'theory'.

Now - did you understand the question or will you dodge this one?

[cousinbasil]

All good points, Bo1, IMO. Another is a simple logical exercise about living vs. nonliving matter: If there was a time when there was no living matter on the planet and now there is, there had to be a place in time where that transformation occurred. I am not saying a "point" in time because that would presuppose something rather abrupt, which is part of what we are trying to reason out. At present, all life issues forth from other life. That has either always been the case, or it has not. If it has always been the case, then life in some form must have been placed on this planet, or brought here. But let's assume that it has not always been the case that life issues forth only from other life. Since that is the case now, the task becomes to discover - in our hypothetical history - when it changed, how, and why. We then must assume that conditions on this planet were such (at that "place" in time) that life spontaneously appeared. It then either proceeded to disappear or it did not. If it did not disappear as soon as it appeared, then life would have had to spontaneously appear complete with a means of replication. This seems fantastically unlikely, if not patently impossible. So what must have happened is that during this "place" in time when conditions were just so, life appeared and vanished numerous times until the event I just described did occur, namely that life finally "took" because at one or more of these spontaneous appearances, the ability to replicate was present.

The problem I have with this, of course, is that it still comes down to shuffling a deck of cards into order. Therefore, this "place" in time during which conditions were ripe must have been of incredible duration.

A pair o' dice lost, a pair o' dice regained.

(edited to fix grammar and spelling)

[alphaeg]

How?

Don't think about it; just react

[Beingof1]

All good points, Bo1, IMO. Another is a simple logical exercise about living vs. nonliving matter: If there was a time when there was no living matter on the planet and now there is, there had to be a place in time where that transformation occurred. I am not saying a "point" in time because that would presuppose something rather abrupt, which is part of what we are trying to reason out.

At least what we define to be life. The evidence, to me, demonstrates that life or consciousness is infinite. This would mean that consciousness interpenetrates the very substructure of the universe itself.

It appears that light is intelligent and is illumination as it is the quantum field. A photon would then contain the atomic structure (albeit encrypted, like DNA) and the information of the universe.

The double split experiment demonstrated that light is both a wave and a particle. When light is a wave, its function is information. When it 'spins' in particle form, its function is energy. Information of idealized bodies capable of self sentience is a highly complex formula and the information is contained in the photon.

The field of energy needed to be slowed down or its velocity reduced or it would be an incomprehensible white noise with no distinction. The brain and central nervous system acts as a very complex resistor and capacitor to the field itself (similar to electronics).

I would say; our consciousness applied the physical bodies needed for the cooling down effect to create distinctions of matter and form.

At present, all life issues forth from other life. That has either always been the case, or it has not. If it has always been the case, then life in some form must have been placed on this planet, or brought here. But let's assume that it has not always been the case that life issues forth only from other life. Since that is the case now, the task becomes to discover - in our hypothetical history - when it changed, how, and why. We then must assume that conditions on this planet were such (at that "place" in time) that life spontaneously appeared. It then either proceeded to disappear or it did not. If it did not disappear as soon as it appeared, then life would have had to spontaneously appear complete with a means of replication. This seems fantastically unlikely, if not patently impossible. So what must have happened is that during this "place" in time when conditions were just so, life appeared and vanished numerous times until the event I just described did occur, namely that life finally "took" because at one or more of these spontaneous appearances, the ability to replicate was present.

I think trial and error are functions of what God is. Life does evolve - just not the way it is presently taught in the evolution model.

The problem I have with this, of course, is that it still comes down to shuffling a deck of cards into order. Therefore, this "place" in time during which conditions were ripe must have been of incredible duration.

A pair o' dice lost, a pair o' dice regained.

If light is the field of consciousness, it is intelligent and is seeking expansion in its function and awareness.

[cousinbasil]

The field of energy needed to be slowed down or its velocity reduced or it would be an incomprehensible white noise with no distinction.

Needed by whom or by what? If it did not slow down, to whom would it have been "incomprehensible"?

At least what we define to be life. The evidence, to me, demonstrates that life or consciousness is infinite. This would mean that consciousness interpenetrates the very substructure of the universe itself.

In my view, that matter behaves in a way that is lawful can be taken as evidence of a Lawgiver - if that is what you mean. Not that I require a "bearded man in the sky" imagery so reviled by pseudointellectual mentality.

It appears that light is intelligent and is illumination as it is the quantum field. A photon would then contain the atomic structure (albeit encrypted, like DNA) and the information of the universe.

This is completely groundless as far as any scientific research that I am aware of goes. It smacks of the belief explained to me by some JW friends that the rainbow - light - is a sign from God with a particular meaning (concerning the Flood, etc.) It strikes me that one can assume that Consciousness is somehow primary without attributing life to light.

The double split experiment demonstrated that light is both a wave and a particle. When light is a wave, its function is information. When it 'spins' in particle form, its function is energy. Information of idealized bodies capable of self sentience is a highly complex formula and the information is contained in the photon.

Again, this is complicating a phenomenon that is slippery enough as it is. From a physical standpoint, light is what it is - energy, always - regardless of the experiments to which one subjects it, which is the sole determination of which side of the wave-particle duality is "falls" on. One can make the distinction that light is energy in transit, and that only at the end of its journey can it be considered to have transmitted information. You seem to be equating a digital state - spin up, spin down, quantum attributes - with information. So far, we use light to transmit information despite its quantum effects, using on/off to carry the data. QM computers are still a ways off, but they will likely use quantum states of electrons as opposed to photons, which are rather simple by comparison.

Something tells me you have already read this, but if not, I think you might like it.

[Beingof1]

The field of energy needed to be slowed down or its velocity reduced or it would be an incomprehensible white noise with no distinction.

Needed by whom or by what? If it did not slow down, to whom would it have been "incomprehensible"?

You.

At least what we define to be life. The evidence, to me, demonstrates that life or consciousness is infinite. This would mean that consciousness interpenetrates the very substructure of the universe itself.

In my view, that matter behaves in a way that is lawful can be taken as evidence of a Lawgiver - if that is what you mean. Not that I require a "bearded man in the sky" imagery so reviled by pseudointellectual mentality.

It means that the blueprint and energy for atomic structure is contained within the electromagnetic field which is to say consciousness.

It appears that light is intelligent and is illumination as it is the quantum field. A photon would then contain the atomic structure (albeit encrypted, like DNA) and the information of the universe.

This is completely groundless as far as any scientific research that I am aware of goes. It smacks of the belief explained to me by some JW friends that the rainbow - light - is a sign from God with a particular meaning (concerning the Flood, etc.) It strikes me that one can assume that Consciousness is somehow primary without attributing life to light.

Your wave of the hand smacks of a repulsive mindset with no research or investigation to examine the evidence.

Is your thought a stream of electrons? Follow that premise, all the way.

The double split experiment demonstrated that light is both a wave and a particle. When light is a wave, its function is information. When it 'spins' in particle form, its function is energy. Information of idealized bodies capable of self sentience is a highly complex formula and the information is contained in the photon.

Again, this is complicating a phenomenon that is slippery enough as it is. From a physical standpoint, light is what it is - energy, always - regardless of the experiments to which one subjects it, which is the sole determination of which side of the wave-particle duality is "falls" on. One can make the distinction that light is energy in transit, and that only at the end of its journey can it be considered to have transmitted information. You seem to be equating a digital state - spin up, spin down, quantum attributes - with information. So far, we use light to transmit information despite its quantum effects, using on/off to carry the data. QM computers are still a ways off, but they will likely use quantum states of electrons as opposed to photons, which are rather simple by comparison.

E=MC2 this means MC2=E.

Something tells me you have already read this, but if not, I think you might like it.

Have not read it.

[cousinbasil]

Is your thought a stream of electrons? Follow that premise, all the way.

No, it's not. That's what needs to be followed all the way.

[cousinbasil]

Your wave of the hand smacks of a repulsive mindset with no research or investigation to examine the evidence.

I would be happy to consider your "research and investigation." Where might one find that?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Mutations almost always result in a disadvantage and almost never result in being passed into heredity. Do you understand? The theory could not take place given Bayesian statistical analysis. The odds - given random cause and effect - could not and does not happen. It is like saying " If I bounce a ball against a wall and it penetrates the wall, this means all balls will always penetrate walls." I give this example because evolution has never been observed, not once, including all fossil records.

It's true mutation almost always results in some disadvantage, at first, although it might not be activated or dominant at first. The rest of your statements are false, caused by you being misinformed and undereducated on some of the fundamentals here. I don't have time to give you a the course you need.

Mutations resulted in a "species" because they could not breed after the mutation with what had previously been something they could breed with.

Obviously a new species is not born overnight. Look into genetic drift to understand how mutations could transfer through a population. Stop thinking in terms of single freaks but pairs or even sudden short-lived plagues of them.

How did one celled organisms evolve into plant and animal yet evolution is subject to strict lateral gene transfer? How could millions of differing species evolve when they can not do that now?

How do you mean "they can not do that now". On which observation is that based? Your own? You think you should see more freaks around you if it was true?

About the how single-celled organisms evolved into complex multi-cellular ones? These are the type of questions science tries to answer bit by bit; check out research in green algae for examples of this process happening right now. I'm sorry if the theory as available in books and documentaries is not complete enough for you or can answer all possible questions you have. It's not meant to be complete. But my question back to you is, again: do you have any competing scientific theory which at least partially and following basic scientific methods tries to answer at least a couple of the questions one could raise about evolution?

You see, I think the gigantic, monumental flaw lies in your perception of science and its methods. You have mistaken ideas on what a theory is and how one goes about it rationally. To admit this is just a too large of a step for you to take. So I can forgive you. But I cannot continue as long as your fundamental misconceptions are kept in place so firmly with no willingness to learn more.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

try to avoid using the expression "sub-par." Native English speakers know this is often used incorrectly to mean the opposite of what it literally says. Literally, "par" in means very good, and "sub-par" is even better.

At least try to look things up in a dictionary before pretending you know what these words mean. All dictionaries in the world will prove you are bullshitting. Why do you feel the need to make such outrageous claims which are so easy to verify?

If it's not possible for you to be rational on the meaning of one simple word (and why even bring it up??) then why would your rant and credentials mean anything? Probably made up too, or something happened with you later on in which case I'm sorry. In the end all you've been saying is: life violated basic laws unless it didn't and it didn't.

I really think you have lost the plot here. Again.

[cousinbasil]

or something happened with you later on in which case I'm sorry

Are you referring to my lobotomy? How dare you.

[Beingof1]

Is your thought a stream of electrons? Follow that premise, all the way.

No, it's not. That's what needs to be followed all the way.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-elec ... rocess.htm

I would be happy to consider your "research and investigation." Where might one find that?

The same place I found the link above - I looked.

[Beingof1]

Mutations almost always result in a disadvantage and almost never result in being passed into heredity. Do you understand? The theory could not take place given Bayesian statistical analysis. The odds - given random cause and effect - could not and does not happen. It is like saying " If I bounce a ball against a wall and it penetrates the wall, this means all balls will always penetrate walls." I give this example because evolution has never been observed, not once, including all fossil records.

The D man:
It's true mutation almost always results in some disadvantage, at first, although it might not be activated or dominant at first. The rest of your statements are false, caused by you being misinformed and undereducated on some of the fundamentals here. I don't have time to give you a the course you need.

Of course you can`t be bothered to explain this blatant contradiction - it might snap you out of the haze.

Same old tactics " go learn something about evolution" is the common answer from all the 'believers' when confronted with the stunning fact that the so called 'theory', is a ball of misinformation and lacks any coherent and cogent logic. Just cannot seem to get any answers for the contradictions in the belief system of evolution. Its always the same answer "go learn something about evolution."

Well; why don`t we? You answer the question and demonstrate your understanding of the mumbo jumbo babble of this internally conflicting so called 'theory of evolution,.

BO1:
Mutations resulted in a "species" because they could not breed after the mutation with what had previously been something they could breed with.

Diebert:
Obviously a new species is not born overnight. Look into genetic drift to understand how mutations could transfer through a population. Stop thinking in terms of single freaks but pairs or even sudden short-lived plagues of them.

Lets take a look at what you actually said here.
In a snapshot; evolution cannot be observed but we know its true anyway. How is that science?

How did one celled organisms evolve into plant and animal yet evolution is subject to strict lateral gene transfer? How could millions of differing species evolve when they can not do that now?


How do you mean "they can not do that now". On which observation is that based? Your own? You think you should see more freaks around you if it was true?

This is the friggin point Diebert - pay attention please. If it cannot be observed that a single cell mutated into trillions of differing life and species, at what point did this stop?

About the how single-celled organisms evolved into complex multi-cellular ones? These are the type of questions science tries to answer bit by bit; check out research in green algae for examples of this process happening right now. I'm sorry if the theory as available in books and documentaries is not complete enough for you or can answer all possible questions you have. It's not meant to be complete. But my question back to you is, again: do you have any competing scientific theory which at least partially and following basic scientific methods tries to answer at least a couple of the questions one could raise about evolution?

I know the theory Diebert - I am the one who brought it up - remember?

I asked for evidence or at the minimum a cogent answer. Neither are forthcoming from you that I can see.

You see, I think the gigantic, monumental flaw lies in your perception of science and its methods. You have mistaken ideas on what a theory is and how one goes about it rationally. To admit this is just a too large of a step for you to take. So I can forgive you. But I cannot continue as long as your fundamental misconceptions are kept in place so firmly with no willingness to learn more.

You are not paying attention at all and you accuse me of what?

Pay attention - pay attention - pay attention - ore do not bother.

I gave the underlying foundation of the scientific method and compared it to evolution. Its on the first page of this thread.

Go and look and stay on subject or don`t bother.