Evolution is Fact

[maikeru]

in a nutshell, evolution is all about culling the weak so the strong become stronger.

 

If you don't mind me changing a few words, I'd put evolution in a nutshell this way: "Evolution is all about (natural selection) culling the unfit so the fit become fitter (by inheriting traits that make the resulting progeny better adapted, thanks to their progenitors' greater reproductive success)."

[goku]

It is staggering the amount of misinformation, distortions, presuppositions, fallacies, and outright lies that are contained in that video,

 

 

okay, could you tell me two of the lies please?

so i might see what you see

[C1ay]

okay, could you tell me two of the lies please?

so i might see what you see

 

1. At the very beginning of the video the narrator claims that if the universe did not originate from an explosion that the only other option is that is was created. This is patently false.

 

2. Next the claim is made that all attempts to explain the mechanical formation of planets have failed. This implies that they have all been factually disproven which is also patently false.

 

3. The narrator then claims that many observations contradict theories on how the solar system evolved. On the contrary we have an increasing number of observations of other solar systems that support the accretion disk theory.

 

4. The statement that all planets should spin in the same direction because they evolved in the same solar system is patently false.

 

5. He then states that all moons in the solar system should orbit their planets in the same sense. There is no reason to leap to this conclusion.

 

6. He states that forming a planet from a series of collisions should produce a non-spinning planet. This could only be true if all of the collisions were precisely centered.

 

7. He states that there is an unsurmountable hurdle to the formation of large gaseous planets because gases dissipate easily in outer space completely ignoring the effects of gravity and the formation of stars from the same gases.

 

8. He states that science has no answer as to why some planets have rings, again ignoring the accretion disk theory as if it doesn't exist.

 

9. He then states that theories on the moon's origin are completely inadequate with an outright claim that the moon's elements are too dissimilar to Earth's even though the analysis of rocks returned from the moon shows a high probability that the moon originated from the Earth.

 

10. He then states that the moon's orbital plane and circular orbit are evidence of creation.

 

11. Then the claim is made that there is NO evidence that the planetary system could have come about by mechanical means.

 

From small lies to big lies the video is effectively one long string of lies from beginning to end.

[Pyrotex]

In the current tree of life scenario all the original animals came from simpler animals that came from one really simple animal like sponge, But that may not be the case as the fossil evidence suggest every thing showed up all at once very complex to start with. ..which can be explained scientifically though science of emergence.

OTOH: The DNA evidence would seem to indicate a common "ancestor". Of all possible amino acids (20+ are known), the same 4 are used by all life on Earth (technically 5). The same triplets of amino acids code for the same proteins in the vast, vast, vast majority of lifeforms.

 

What we are dealing with is a concealed assumption. :hihi:

 

We have assumed that evolution is always as glacially slow as we see it today. I strongly suspect this is not the case. The very first cellular "life" would have been imperfect in many ways. Especially in reproduction. I would wager that most of a cell's offspring had significant mutations, just from chemical instability, leaky cell walls, blocked transcription, multiple RNA strands, etc. There were no predators.

 

I think there are moments in the origin of life, perhaps multiple moments, where it progressed much as wildfire in dry grasslands. The new form of life, whether the first cell, or the first Eukaryotic cell, or the first multi-cell organims--it spread like wildfire, mutating furiously at every generation, leaving waste products everywhere that affected even more mutations. There was no DNA repair. It was total glorious chaos. And in that chaos, perhaps in only a few million years, the next phase of life spread around the planet

 

The Cambrian Explosion was exactly that. Imagine it. A biochemical explosion spreading around the planet at about the speed of ink dispersing in water. The sun went down on one world. A million sunrises later, it arose on a totally different world. With a dozen new body plans that had not existed before.

[InfiniteNow]

From small lies to big lies the video is effectively one long string of lies from beginning to end.

Great job on the list, C1ay. :hihi:

 

 

I particularly like the one, "If the solar system evolved, then all of the planets should rotate in the same direction. Since the planets don't all rotate in the same direction, the solar system didn't evolve."

 

Another good one was, "If the solar system evolved, then the planets should be made of the same components of the sun. Since the sun is 99% hydrogen, then the planets should be as well. Since the planets are not 99% hydrogen, evolution is false."

 

 

This is not hard to debunk, yet still so many people choose to believe the false statements and ideas. There is a fundamental problem in a society where faith in the absence of evidence is seen as a good thing, especially when all available evidence contradicts that faith.

[Thunderbird]

What we are dealing with is a concealed assumption.

 

This is a very apt statement, in that the shared DNA would seem to indicate a common multi-cellular ancestor, when the common ancestor may in fact have been the single cell.

 

In the emergent scenario the tipping point was reached within the autonomous single cell prior to the Cambrian explosion . An informational threshold was reached as a prerequisite minimal potential. This thresholds being the minimal code for a second autopoetic leap into the environmental constraints of the macro environment. This event marked as separately emerging body plans manifesting directly out of a pre-crystallized cellular agglomerations that can now conform to a new fitness space of varying environmental dynamics, conditions, cycles, and platforms.

[REASON]

This is not hard to debunk, yet still so many people choose to believe the false statements and ideas. There is a fundamental problem in a society where faith in the absence of evidence is seen as a good thing, especially when all available evidence contradicts that faith.

 

And you know what? It's one thing if false information is accidentally spread, it's quite another when there is the blatent intention to spread false information for the purpose of controlling thought.

 

In fact, it is shameful!

[Pyrotex]

Great job on the list, C1ay. :hihi:

...yet still so many people choose to believe the false statements and ideas. There is a fundamental problem in a society where faith in the absence of evidence is seen as a good thing, especially when all available evidence contradicts that faith.

 

"Man’s unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has NOT been proven to NOT exist -- therefore -- he MUST exist.”

 

-- Academician Prokhov Zakharov,

“Alpha Centauri”

[Pyrotex]

...the blatent intention to spread false information... is shameful!

Amen

[goku]

6. He states that forming a planet from a series of collisions should produce a non-spinning planet. This could only be true if all of the collisions were precisely centered.

 

that is not the only way, but i'll let you think about it

cuz i think you know :)

[goku]

7. He states that there is an unsurmountable hurdle to the formation of large gaseous planets because gases dissipate easily in outer space completely ignoring the effects of gravity and the formation of stars from the same gases.

 

really? that's a purty good point

 

i mean seeing how no one was there when the solar system formed

but it is hard to figure out cuz all we have is the end of the equation

ex. the answer is 911255, now give me the problem

[InfiniteNow]

that is not the only way, but i'll let you think about it

cuz i think you know :)

 

You do realize, don't you, that what was suggested in that video was plainly wrong? I don't care the motivation you have for defending it, you're still defending lies (which seems obviously and obscenely counter to the good book in which you place so much importance).

 

 

i mean seeing how no one was there when the solar system formed

but it is hard to figure out cuz all we have is the end of the equation

ex. the answer is 911255, now give me the problem

 

It truly would do you great benefit if you learned about the things you wish to discredit, as right now, you are simply making a fool of yourself.

 

 

Tell me about milking cows. I want to hear you post about a subject which you truly undrestand. These posts on issues about which you need additional education is helping no one, and makes you look needlessly ignorant.

 

I have great confidence that you are not a stupid man, goku. I just sense that you are repeating the misguided ignorant comments of others, as opposed to speaking sincerely with your own voice.

[REASON]

ex. the answer is 911255, now give me the problem

 

What is 182,251 x 5. And I Can prove it. :)

[HydrogenBond]

I don't argue against evolution, because I believe it is wrong. Rather I try to point out some of its shortcomings so it can become better. We can not use evolutionary theory to predict the future. At least one eye is blind. We try to ignore that limitation to the theory.

 

Here is an analogy. We find an alien space ship. The technology is all new but we take it apart and sort of figure out what is what. Then we convince everyone and ourselves we know how this baby works. All I am saying is fire that baby up and fly it around. The support theory for evolution can't go there.

 

Evolution is currently based on Monday morning quarterback theory. When the game is on, it is in the dark. They know someone will win. It is not until Monday, then they can go back, look at highlights and say they should have thrown the ball here. Once we can predict the future, it may not look the same way. We may lose some of the naturalists philosophy maybe it will stay but the force fit may be irrational.

[InfiniteNow]

So, are we supposed to accept that evolution presents itself as some sort of crystal ball into the future, or would it, perhaps, be more appropriate to accept that you, HydrogenBond, have AGAIN misframed what evolution is to fit with some preconceived, invalid, and inaccurate description of what it truly is?

 

 

Seriously... you should have your own smiley. It would be under the title :givemea****ingbreakthatsnotwhatanybodyistalkingaboutyouridiculousmoron:

[freeztar]

Here is an analogy. We find an alien space ship. The technology is all new but we take it apart and sort of figure out what is what. Then we convince everyone and ourselves we know how this baby works. All I am saying is fire that baby up and fly it around. The support theory for evolution can't go there.

 

Analogies are only useful when they connect disparate ideas in meaningful ways. In this case, it would be much better, imho, if you simply stated something like: "Evolutionary theory is not capable of being tested in the present". (at least this is what I think you meant...hard to tell sometimes)

 

Instead, you chose to use a paragraph to make an analogy between the gestalt of an alien spacecraft and evolutionary theory. This does not help the conversation along, but rather, befuddles it.

 

So I ask, why can't evolution "go there"?

[C1ay]

that is not the only way, but i'll let you think about it

cuz i think you know :phones:

 

Touché. I should not have used the term 'only' when I can think of other mechanical means it could have happened, even if they are unlikely. The point remains that the narrators statement is still a lie. It is highly unlikely that planets formed from a series of collisions would not have any net rotational energy.

 

really? that's a purty good point

 

i mean seeing how no one was there when the solar system formed

but it is hard to figure out cuz all we have is the end of the equation

ex. the answer is 911255, now give me the problem

 

Yep, no one was there and we can't state factually any certain method of formation. The difference between science and the faithful though is that science will acknowledge the truth and say that we don't know for certain, that we are searching for the truth and its supporting evidence. The faithful will not, they claim creation is a fact. They claim that the lack of conclusive evidence for mechanical evolution is supporting evidence for their own belief when it is not. They are effectively lying to themselves and everyone else. If they really cared about the truth they would realize that a complete and total proof that the accretion disk theory was wrong would not be proof that their theory is right. That you cannot conclude that A is true just because B is false when A and B could both be false. In short they are close minded because they believe that there cannot be any true answer except the one they have proclaimed as true based completely on faith alone.