The Basic Stupidity of Evolution(ism)

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Zyta, Nov 5, 2013.

  1. Zyta

    Zyta Drifting Super Mod

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,428
    The belief that people, plants, animals, everything living on Earth came from a non-living hunk of rock. Consider humans may actually represent a re-engineering process beginning with something which had tails, but there is no way to think that humans evolved from apes, hominids, or anything else.

    Neanderthal DNA is described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, ruling the Neanderthal out as a plausible human ancestor since the genetic gap is simply too wide, and there is no reason to think that any other hominid would have been genetically closer to us than the Neanderthal.

    A hominid trying to evolve into a human would need to have:

    1. Lost his fur while ice ages were going on.

    2. Lost almost all of his night vision in an age when night was the only time of day to be had.

    3. Lost almost all of his sense of smell while trying to make it as a land prey animal.

    None of those items would be a formula for success, but that third item would be instantly fatal. Aside from all of that, it turns out that humans and hominids do not even come from the same place:

    Thread: Radical thesis on human and solar system origins

    The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

    The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

    Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, or some other member of that crowd.

    To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

    God Hates IDIOTS Too...

    The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

    Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

    For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

    In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

    All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

    And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

    Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

    Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

    And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

    You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

    But it gets even stupider.

    Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

    Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

    Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

    1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...

    [​IMG]

    2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

    3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

    4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

    5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.


    The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

    And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:



    They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"


    They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

    Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

    I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
     
  2. sfmaster

    sfmaster Getting Thinner

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    586


    Evolution is a theory in the same way chemistry or gravity are theories. Belief in evolution is not a religious belief but a belief in basic scientific principles. People who believe that hamburgers are the best food ever wouldn't be called hamburgerists. They might be asked why they believe that and after explaining their belief some people might agree or disagree and that would be the end of it. The difference is that the belief in the greatness of hamburgers doesn't threaten any major religions, evolution does which is why it is often belittled. Religion has no firm ground to stand on from a scientific standpoint, which is why many religious types equate the belief in evolution to a religious belief. It is also why the word theory is used so often in these settings.

    Einstein had a theory once, but after it was tested repeatedly it ceased being a theory and became a scientifically proven fact. Evolution was also a theory at one time, it has been tested more times than you could shake a stick at and now it stands on a mountain of evidence. You could have even more evidence than you have now but still it would not be enough for many in the religious community. Indeed, no amount of evidence would be enough. This is convenient, because if given even the slightest amount of real scientific validation many in the religious community would be quite smug a bout it. Religion in general is faith based, meaning that it is un-testable, therefore scientifically invalid.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no such thing as "evolutionism." I believe in evolution based on my understanding of science. "Creationism" revels in the mystery while real science is about a genuine quest for answers. There are those who acknowledge what is right in front of them. And there are those who hide behind the veil of religion.

    This is a pretty heavy topic so I certainly hope nobody gets offended, and if they are, well maybe it will make them think a bit more about it all.
     
  3. MercenaryOfPie

    MercenaryOfPie Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    I find it really interesting that you're sleeping with Tina Turner.

    Evolutionism does not threaten religion, religion is based on faith.

    Hamburgers are delicious.

    *casts resurrection*
     
  4. Isa

    Isa Dovie'andi se tovya sagai

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,109
    I'd like to point something out about this. If your facts are right Homo sapiens neanderthalensis would have shared roughly 99.4% of the same genetic code as us. for reference Chimpanzees share about 98.8% of the same genetic material according to the American Museum of Natural History. A research study presented in November of 2012 showed that 40% of the differences between Pan troglodytes (common chimp) and Homo Sapiens Sapiens is responsible for what genetic traits are expressed by offspring and carried on. However according to the results of the German coordinated "Neanderthal Genome Project" published in 2010 Homo sapiens neanderthalensis shares only 99.7% of it's nucleic DNA with Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

    Let's look at some known facts:
    The animal kingdom (primate, feline, avian, reptile, etc.) shares as little as 90% of the same genetic material. Most of the creatures in the Galapagos islands have roughly a 3-4% margin of difference between species with common ancestry, and they have only been separated for a few hundred years. Here's the real kicker though- we only know what about a quarter of what that genetic material that marks us as different from other primates does so for all we know most of it could be unused of unnecessary, such as the gene's responsible for inherited forms of Hypertrichosis (a.k.a Ambras syndrome, sometimes called werewolf syndrome in extreme cases). Sadly we have been unable to extract either nucleic DNA or Mitochondrial DNA from any of the Homo Erectus or Homo Habilis fossils found so a comparison there is unavailable.

    You also need to account for the fact that when comparing DNA between two species the results are averaged. This is fairly important to know since the human race as a whole has a variable of roughly 2% in it's genetics. When running paternity test scientist are only looking at a specific set of a few hundred genetic markers. So while 50% of Matt's DNA may be the same as that of a banana, I might have only 48% of the same genetic makeup, Doesn't seem like much until you realize that the 2% accounts for several million pairs of genetic codes. For a frame of reference in humans the 1st chromosome is the largest and contains 220 million pairs of nucleobases. We still don't have a clue what does what in that line of code, although thanks to the work of the largest collaborative biological project to date, The Human Genome Project, since 2003 we've at least known what order they are supposed to go in.

    Having given you some information to think over I'm not going to defend the Theory of Evolution, it's not a scientific law yet because the scientific community itself has admitted a few OVERLAPS (not gaps matt) in the fossil record, there is fossil evidence covering several hundred thousand years where three or four distinct species of hominid were present on earth. Not many but some, for example fossilized footprints of anatomically modern humans were found a few hundred years lower in the fossil record than the remains of the Australopithecus Africanus remains commonly known as Lucy. However there is more recent evidence to support evolution in the form of several breeds of moth that existed at the dawn of the industrial age, within 20 years of us pumping excessive amounts of smog and coal smoke into the air most of them had changed colors to darker shades of brown or black to better camouflage themselves in the industrialized environments they lived in, the breeds that either didn't adapt to the toxin enriched environments they found themselves in or migrate to cleaner environments are now extinct

    Despite what sfmaster said Evolution is still considered a theory because it's recognized as incomplete. While there is a significant amount of evidence supporting that Evolution does in fact occur and is a by product of natural selection gaps in the fossil record are present. Evolution is not as simple a thing as a new organ suddenly developing or multiple changes occurring at once for the most part it is a matter of whichever variation of the body proves the most viable is the one that survives. However you also have what's known as silent mutations where a single amino acid in a genetic marker changes but doesn't make any functional difference, for example if a genetic sequence reads AATTAGA, and shifted to GATTAGA nothing would change physically about the species it was present in however when you add several million of these changes you can get a physical change such as increased brain capacity, higher muscle density, or even the shift from quadruped to biped.

    Human's developed a greater capacity for thought over time because thinking is a very valuable tool for a species to have, by thinking and reasoning through the system of cause an effect human's can survive in environments that they physically aren't prepared for. being able to utilize fire made the need for a fur pelt obsolete and so the body adapted out a feature that was more hindrance than gain. several thousand years ago with the development of weapons and tools for hunting the need for claws and fangs became obsolete and bodies filtered out that tool in favor of moving towards more cerebral development. We take care of our young as they develop so that they have a better chance to survive childhood and unlike most creatures of the animal kingdom humans develop as much after birth as they do before. or brain tissue and bones are less formed than they will be even a year or two after birth because the female body could not physically survive birthing a fully developed body. But evolution is also driven by natural selection, if a mutation of the body is nonviable or overly cumbersome the mutant strain dies off quickly, however if the mutation results in an offspring better equipped to survive then it will continue doing so.

    In summary: Evolution is still a theory because while it has a large quantity of empirical evidence and some concrete evidence it is acknowledged as being incomplete and a work in progress. However there is more to support the concept of evolution than there is to support the concept that an invisible being in the sky with infinite knowledge and power carefully crafted each species of flora and fauna and then set them loose to go do random and frequently horrible crap to each other.
     
  5. Dolentrean

    Dolentrean Me

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,162
    No. Scientific Theory means something totally different than the typical definition of Theory.

    A Theory, in scientific terms, is a set of principals and observations that defines and explains an observable law. It must also adhere to the scientific process, meaning that it must be falsifiable. These things are just as true for gravity as they are for evolution.

    Gravity Theory is what describes Gravity. Germs Theory and Sperm Theory are both theories as well. Theory does not equate to hypothesis. When I hear someone say "Evolution is just a theory" I hear "I don't know what the word theory means."

    With all this being said, I will fully admit I only skimmed these walls of text; the only thing I felt the need to add was LEARN WHAT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS!
     
  6. Isa

    Isa Dovie'andi se tovya sagai

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,109
    Read the wall of text Chase. I'm aware of what a theory is in science however when I say Evolution is just a theory I mean that the scientific community accepts that it may not be right, or that it's incomplete. For example The theory of gravity you mentioned while accepted as fact is admitted as not being 100% accurate where as a scientific law is considered to be accurate, complete, and repeatedly demonstratable.

    Conservation of Mass, Conservation of Energy, the 3 laws of motion, those are Laws because we as a race have found them complete nothing about them is unexplainable or incomplete. Evolution is a theory not because we think it might be wrong but because we know it is incomplete.
     
    MercenaryOfPie likes this.