Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

That would be interesting to hear... I would like to know the background of the way of thinking of the people I talk to.

My mistake. It wasn't the Saint. It was someone else, but it certainly is a good question. If people think they can speak with the dead, and the soul transmigrates, how does that fit in with evolution? (Sorry, @Saint Frankenstein , it was someone else, unless you do think you speak with the dead...)

 

[Eli G]

The truth is that people can have very complex conceptions of the world.

I read somewhere that a Bahai forum member believed that spiritualist communication with "dead" people was acceptable. I was never sure if this was a matter of her Bahai religion, or something just personal.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My mistake. It wasn't the Saint. It was someone else, but it certainly is a good question. If people think they can speak with the dead, and the soul transmigrates, how does that fit in with evolution? (Sorry, @Saint Frankenstein , it was someone else, unless you do think you speak with the dead...)

Yes, you can have contact with the souls of the deceased in my religion but rebirth isn't a big part of my beliefs, no. That's more of a prominent theme in Hinduism. I'm not aware of the Germanic peoples believing you can be reborn as another species. The most they seemed to believe in it involved rebirth into your family line, unless someone wants to correct me there. The dead mostly go to various Halls or realms after they die, not being reborn. So it's not something I really focus on.

 

[John53]

Only humans have the ability to invent airplanes. Birds fly naturally, that is, some do, there is no need for them to invent wings. God gave them wings. I am aware of the explanation by scientists that dinosaurs developed by mutation wings and eventually evolved to become birds.\Scientists may have explanations as to how birds got their wings, but at this point it doesn't make sense to me any longer that life in its different forms evolved. One reason is because yes, I have come to believe what the Bible says. The other reason is that the theory of evolution is very hazy, Starting with abiogenesis and moving on outward and upward, I suppose. Since yes, there are no video cameras recording the supposed each and every incremental change, it is imagined and part of that imagined seqquences are based on fossils. But any reasonable person would have to say that the fossils are not conclusive evidence of the process of evolution as far as I am concerned now.

Abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution.

Of course fossils are not conclusive evidence, if they were we wouldn't be having this conversation. But they are evidence of evolution being correct and therefore a lot more evidence then there is for a God.

And I believe the opinion of numerous trained palaeontologists over yours.

 

[Eli G]

What? Are you not familiar with body language??? The vast majority of communication is not verbal.

That is true. I was talking about oral tradition, like transmitting the idea of God from generation to generation.

I'm sure that animals don't have schools where they learn how to nest (birds), or how to migrate to faraway places at specific times. It's instinct that guides them, and much of it is already pre-designed in their genes.

I'm sorry if I don't continue talking to you. I assure you that the reason is that I feel very tired right now.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm sure that animals don't have schools where they learn how to nest (birds), or how to migrate to faraway places at specific times. It's instinct that guides them, and much of it is already pre-designed in their genes.

It's not "instinct", it's because they're able to sense things we're not able to (like various species having infrared vision, sonar, birds having specific directional capabilities in flight, enhanced hearing, etc.). Animals also teach their young skills like any other parent does, generally. Social species basically all teach their young how to survive and they have to learn the rules of the group. So you're just incorrect. You don't seem to understand a lot about animals. I mean, it's not the 18th century.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm sorry if I don't continue talking to you. I assure you that the reason is that I feel very tired right now.

That's fine. You can stop replying for the night and go to sleep. Lol

 

[Eli G]

... You don't seem to understand a lot about animals. I mean, it's not the 18th century.

You seem to know a lot about animals, but not much about humans. Do you know what "I am tired" means?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You seem to know a lot about animals, but not much about humans. Do you know what "I am tired" means?

Do you know I don't control you and you can log out at any time, and come back to it later?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NO!

Because they are fit in different ways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's the magic word and something you might see every day around the farm house.

There were no farm houses a mere 10,500 years ago and then suddenly agricultures were born and they sprouted up everywhere shoosting to the sky like weeds. These creatures transformed human life in a few generations. Where every agriculture had been wild and men had to go into the jungles and deserts to hunt them suddenly they were tame and could be reproduced on a massive scale around every house. This allowed cities to rise from the earth as well where people were much more numerous and agricultures more sparse.

And yet agricultures were invented without Darwin's beliefs and assumptions. People learned to raise wheat from kittens.

It's a truly remarkable story but you might think I have the details wrong. But no Darwin was involved in the process. None of Darwin's beliefs were employed.

You are not making any sense here. Sounds like you are arguing a giant strawman.
You somehow are under the impression that I said / claim / believe that one can't engage in agriculture without knowing about darwin or something?

We believe they spoke Latin just like every Spanish speaker but the reality is we just don't know.

Uh, no, we do know....

The reality is they obviously didn't share your beliefs in survival of the fittest or gradual change in "species". They had no words for "species" or "belief".

So?

 

[McBell]

You've never answered what the point of these kind of statements are. You keep repeating it but don't explain why.

They also talk about no video cameras back then but also refuse to actually discuss it.

 

[McBell]

Only humans have the ability to invent airplanes.

And?
You keep making these type of captain obvious statements as though you think they are some sort of ace in the hole, but the reality is they merely make you look desperate.

Birds fly naturally, that is, some do, there is no need for them to invent wings. God gave them wings. I am aware of the explanation by scientists that dinosaurs developed by mutation wings and eventually evolved to become birds.\Scientists may have explanations as to how birds got their wings, but at this point it doesn't make sense to me any longer that life in its different forms evolved. One reason is because yes, I have come to believe what the Bible says. The other reason is that the theory of evolution is very hazy, Starting with abiogenesis and moving on outward and upward, I suppose.

So basically you are here making a fool of yourself simply because you can not accept evolution because it disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible?

Since yes, there are no video cameras recording the supposed each and every incremental change, it is imagined and part of that imagined seqquences are based on fossils. But any reasonable person would have to say that the fossils are not conclusive evidence of the process of evolution as far as I am concerned now.

At least evolution has fossils as evidence.
Your Bible stories do not even have that.

Then when you add all the other evidences for evolution.....
Which, again, the Bible stories have none of...

 

[Argentbear]

Only humans have the ability to invent airplanes. Birds fly naturally, that is, some do, there is no need for them to invent wings. God gave them wings. I am aware of the explanation by scientists that dinosaurs developed by mutation wings and eventually evolved to become birds.\Scientists may have explanations as to how birds got their wings, but at this point it doesn't make sense to me any longer that life in its different forms evolved. One reason is because yes, I have come to believe what the Bible says. The other reason is that the theory of evolution is very hazy, Starting with abiogenesis and moving on outward and upward, I suppose. Since yes, there are no video cameras recording the supposed each and every incremental change, it is imagined and part of that imagined seqquences are based on fossils. But any reasonable person would have to say that the fossils are not conclusive evidence of the process of evolution as far as I am concerned now.

A reasonable person looking honestly at the fossil record would find the evidence convincing

 

[Argentbear]

My mistake. It wasn't the Saint. It was someone else, but it certainly is a good question. If people think they can speak with the dead, and the soul transmigrates, how does that fit in with evolution? (Sorry, @Saint Frankenstein , it was someone else, unless you do think you speak with the dead...)

why would it have to fit in with evolution?

 

[cladking]

For me, I'd think it would take a long time to evolve from water breathing fish by mutation to land dwelling oxygen breathing animals.

If it really happened it didn't happen all at once but rather in numerous steps with each new species less fish like and more like a mammal or reptile.

You somehow are under the impression that I said / claim / believe that one can't engage in agriculture without knowing about darwin or something?

No... ...I am saying no individual can engage in highly complex activity without understanding through theory. Just as it requires science to create a beehive or a beaver dam it required science for human to create agriculture. Agriculture is orders of magnitude more complex because humans have a more complex language and secondarily because humans are a little more clever.

Uh, no, we do know....

How do you know what early farmers spoke? Extrapolation right? We just project everything we know about the stinky footed bumpkins who wrote history starting 1200 years after the invention of writing and that's sufficient. We know language evolves so this is sufficient proof it has always evolved and no amount of evidence can affect this equation. It doesn't matter that the same symbols are found in caves all over the world because people mustta spoken proto Latin anyway.

 

[cladking]

So?

How do you think ancient people suddenly invented agriculture all over the world? How would it even be possible to suddenly invent agriculture even in one single place if "Evolution" takes millions and millions of years and only the fit survive rather than the timid?

You know I've long believed that human success is principally the result of complex language and that cleverness, the opposable thumb, walking upright, and our inventions have all greased the path. I'm beginning to reevaluate these beliefs. Specifically where early homo omnisciencis were apparently far more clever than other animals I'm beginning to suspect we are not. We might be far down from being number one even and we may be dropping fast as animals observe our technology and modern materials.

Now there's some Evolution for you. We have created a world where cleverness is punished and weaknesses (characteristic that are less pronounced) are rewarded. Soon enough a Handicapper General (...so it goes) will be appointed and only the weak can thrive or be free. We are adapting to this new world but we probably have evolved a might as well.


They invented agriculture and cities very suddenly. You don't know why or how, I do. The answer shows Darwin is wrong about everything and even a termite can understand this.

 

[Argentbear]

If it really happened it didn't happen all at once but rather in numerous steps with each new species less fish like and more like a mammal or reptile.



No... ...I am saying no individual can engage in highly complex activity without understanding through theory. Just as it requires science to create a beehive or a beaver dam it required science for human to create agriculture. Agriculture is orders of magnitude more complex because humans have a more complex language and secondarily because humans are a little more clever.

Ants and termites both engage in agriculture....

 

[cladking]

Ants and termites both engage in agriculture....

Indeed!

Both are relatively "simple" agriculture but they are highly complex relative mere chance occurrence.

I believe we need to recognize other types of science with the most relevant being "Natural Science" which is coming to understand ones' environment through logic and observation rather than experiment and observation. This understanding allows the invention (manipulation) of technology within its parameters.

Termites have Termite Science and Humans had Human Science. One was far more complex because humans had far more complex language to allow the accumulation of knowledge through the generations.

 

[wellwisher]

Your point? Chemistry happens.
Yes we will admit water mediates many reactions.

Water also plays a role in making all bioactive materials, bioactive. A raw protein, just off a ribosome, is not bioactive. Once it enters the water, which is everywhere, the organic nature of the protein create a water-oil effect; surface tension with water. If we shake Italian salad dressing; vinegar (water) and oil, it can become an emulsion; mixed uniformly. If we wait a few minutes the water and will oil separate. In the case of water and raw protein, the protein will bubbles up in the water, with the water packing the protein into its bio-active shape. You cannot replace water, with nay other solvent, since other solvents pack protein differently and these shapes are not bioactive.

All the organelles in cells are due to the water-oil effect. Like with water and oil, they like little bubbles combining to, make bigger bubbles. In terms of evolution, the water and oil effect was always there, and as the first protein formed, the water started pack them and even caused groups to combines. This is not random but due to the water and oil effect having a goal of minimal surface tension.

If you had a bunch of different random protein; Abiogenesis, at the shoreline, where the waves mix and the water separates and packs; cyclically, eventually you get stable organic clusters.

The DNA double helix and the RNA single Helix are also water dependent. DNA and RNA differ by one base. DNA has thymine and RNA has Uracil. The Thymine is more oily due to the extra -CH3 group, so the water packs it tighter; double helix. DNA and RNA also have a different sugar which also favors DNA as a double helix; water-oil effect.

The image that current evolution theory paints is too random, since the water and oil effect forces results, that are the same each time. I like evolution, but the random assumption is sophomoric, due to water and water and oil effect. Water has a sweet spots of minimal potential and since water is still the dominant phase in cells; majority material, evolution is about working its way to the sweet spots of water. There may be randomizing, along the way, but mostly to find the better ways to the sweet spots.

Water has other tricks up its sleeve.