There simply isnt enough time

[AbandonShip]

Your opinion bro, I find rather implausible that one cell could have evolved into something so orderly and complex in a universe that tends toward more entropy and more disorder.

Do you even know what entropy is? It has nothing to do with biology and evolution.

You have misinterpreted it. It's used in physics to describe the second law of thermodynamics.
Hint: "chaos" and "disorder" when mentioning entropy doesnt mean what you think

 

[AbandonShip]

Yeah a discrete reference point in a gradual system. There still must be a lot of steps to reach this point, and a lot of (not necessarily beneficial) mutations to arrange themselves properly

All the things i mentioned were benificial.

 

[AlwaysHaveQuestions]

old people live like shit but they like to pretend they are happy so they won't rope

 

[shaugstir]

damn it really is over being an oldcel

 

[Matheus]

Do you even know what entropy is? It has nothing to do with biology and evolution.

You have misinterpreted it. It's used in physics to describe the second law of thermodynamics.
Hint: "chaos" and "disorder" when mentioning entropy doesnt mean what you think

Now I understand why you can't grasp the meaning of the stories given by religions. You're so fucking literal it's annoying ngl. By entropy I do not mean the literal law of thermodynamics but the tendency of everything in the universe to try to go back to a primordial state by losing structure. Your tire gets used, your car breaks down, that's what I meant. How did the first cell, that seemingly already had that innate drive to survive, come into being from proteins? I don't find the claim that a random soup of proteins could have created us more believable than the existence of a transcendant being called God but whatever floats your boat

 

[Matheus]

All the things i mentioned were benificial.

Yes but they were discrete mutations in a gradual system. How did your light-sensitive screen even come into being? Do you know how much mutations in a creature's brain and his overall structure are required for even that? Those mutations, those steps between those you mentioned, aren't necessarily beneficial

 

[AbandonShip]

Now I understand why you can't grasp the meaning of the stories given by religions. You're so fucking literal it's annoying ngl. By entropy I do not mean the literal law of thermodynamics but the tendency of everything in the universe to try to go back to a primordial state by losing structure. Your tire gets used, your car breaks down, that's what I meant. How did the first cell, that seemingly already had that innate drive to survive, come into being from proteins? I don't find the claim that a random soup of proteins could have created us more believable than the existence of a transcendant being called God but whatever floats your boat

Lmfao universe doesnt have some urge to break things down. A tire getting used and car breaking down are subjective opinions that dont concern the universe

 

[Matheus]

Lmfao universe doesnt have some urge to break things down. A tire getting used and car breaking down are subjective opinions that dont concern the universe

Those are concrete examples of what happens at every scale of the universe. Stars die, heat dissipates. Idk why you can't grasp that

 

[AbandonShip]

Those are concrete examples of what happens at every scale of the universe. Stars die, heat dissipates. Idk why you can't grasp that

And a car breaking down is heat dissipation?

 

[curryslayerordeath]

See above reply to the other guy. You guys took me literally when I meant half an eye, my point is still the same. What I meant is some form of organ that is halfway through being a full blown eye, like indeed a curved light sensitive screen.

This literally would never exist lol. Why would something ever be born with a non functional, deformed appendage but still continue to live out and reproduce (prior to modern technology).

Your opinion bro, I find rather implausible that one cell could have evolved into something so orderly and complex in a universe that tends toward more entropy and more disorder.

Lmfao bro, this current mechanism is what increases entropy and creates more disorder...you are again arguing against yourself. Having some Yahweh-type figure create an archetype male and female, who populated this planet is infinitely more against the nature of the universe (ie trending much more "orderly").

Wdym?

THose uncertainties of Darwin that you mention have been fleshed out in the succeeding centuries. Just because in the 1800s, everything didn't have rigor, doesn't mean that its the same now.

Idk man, not an expert on that point. I just know that evolution isn't the objectively true end-all-be-all of how we came to be. Mind you I used to be a staunch evolutionist

There is no "evolutionist", its a biological fact. I'm not an atheist and there's nothing about evolution that goes against god, only against organized religion.

Lmfao universe doesnt have some urge to break things down. A tire getting used and car breaking down are subjective opinions that dont concern the universe

Lol its so stupid when people throw around words without understanding them: so far "mutation", "evolution", "entropy", "disorder"; all completely in the wrong context.

 

[curryslayerordeath]

Yes but they were discrete mutations in a gradual system. How did your light-sensitive screen even come into being? Do you know how much mutations in a creature's brain and his overall structure are required for even that? Those mutations, those steps between those you mentioned, aren't necessarily beneficial

That's why species die early? That's why many members don't reproduce? That's why no sexually reproducing organism looks the same? That why higher sentience creatures like us populate these forums?

All these discrepancies you bring up aren't discrepancies but instead solidify the theory you're arguing against. (The light sensitive thing that he said was obviously not in a biological context lol, it was to show how your half-a-feature thing is really stupid).

 

[curryslayerordeath]

Now I understand why you can't grasp the meaning of the stories given by religions. You're so fucking literal it's annoying ngl. By entropy I do not mean the literal law of thermodynamics but the tendency of everything in the universe to try to go back to a primordial state by losing structure. Your tire gets used, your car breaks down, that's what I meant.

If you use the word 'entropy', you have to mean in a thermodynamic context. The examples you show are insignificant on a universal level, and when you try to generalize that to large populations, it fails (bc the overall disorder increase is the trend that matters, so if certain orderings lead to a more disorderly structure overall, then it still follows proper thermodynamic rules).

How did the first cell, that seemingly already had that innate drive to survive, come into being from proteins? I don't find the claim that a random soup of proteins could have created us more believable than the existence of a transcendant being called God but whatever floats your boat

Please tell me you're joking lol, this is a ridiculous simplification of what would actually occur. Single organism soups don't randomly turn into creatures. It happens with millions of transitions over a time scale so large that our minds can't visualize it. (btw im not intending to attack in anything i say nor am i an atheist)

 

[Matheus]

And a car breaking down is heat dissipation?

Jesus. I'll just start replying only to @curryslayerordeath bc you can't even grasp a basic analogy. A car breaks down bc its system isn't perfect and thus accumulates disorder and wears, it goes back to a disorderly state. Heat follows the same basic principle by transferring itself (bc its energy) to less energetic areas over time. Hence if the apocalypse or whatever doesn't happen we will all end up freezing bc the universe's temperature will be low and equal across all space.

 

[Gosick]

As long as you look young, you are young.

Some high schoolers often get mistaken for alot older whereas ppl in their 30's like Amnesia look early twenties. Age itself doesnt matter, its how young you look which is what matters.

 

[Lolcel]

But still not improving your situation as much as you can if you were born in shitty circumstances is the worst thing to do

 

[AbandonShip]

Jesus. I'll just start replying only to @curryslayerordeath bc you can't even grasp a basic analogy. A car breaks down bc its system isn't perfect and thus accumulates disorder and wears, it goes back to a disorderly state. Heat follows the same basic principle by transferring itself (bc its energy) to less energetic areas over time. Hence if the apocalypse or whatever doesn't happen we will all end up freezing bc the universe's temperature will be low and equal across all space.

Your analogy is fallacious. You cant just take things out of context. Besides as @curryslayerordeath mentioned, the entorpy of biological life is increasing in a manner that it's supposed to. Your subjective opinion of "disorder" doesnt matter.

Things "wearing down" isnt entropy cause thats a subjective opinion.

 

[Need2Ascend]

Time is your worst enemy

 

[Matheus]

This literally would never exist lol. Why would something ever be born with a non functional, deformed appendage but still continue to live out and reproduce (prior to modern technology).

You just argued against yourself so you must have read what I wrote wrongly. Read it again

Lmfao bro, this current mechanism is what increases entropy and creates more disorder...you are again arguing against yourself. Having some Yahweh-type figure create an archetype male and female, who populated this planet is infinitely more against the nature of the universe (ie trending much more "orderly").

- Evolution creates order and structure (complexity from simplicity)
- The nature of the universe in your excerpt is to create more disorder.
→ Thus something outside of nature must have created this order.
The universe is trending towards more disorder bc God doesn't intervene. If the nature of the universe is to tend towards disorder then how come something come out of nothing, something that is contained within this same universe?

THose uncertainties of Darwin that you mention have been fleshed out in the succeeding centuries. Just because in the 1800s, everything didn't have rigor, doesn't mean that its the same now.

Expand, don't just say that, give examples and reasonings. You said that transitional life forms are everywhere around us and now you say that. You're being too vague.

There is no "evolutionist", its a biological fact. I'm not an atheist and there's nothing about evolution that goes against god, only against organized religion.

This is true, if evolution was proven right it would change nothing to my belief, even to my christian belief. But I still think evolution isn't necessarily true. If you changed my mind then I would be all the wiser.

Lol its so stupid when people throw around words without understanding them: so far "mutation", "evolution", "entropy", "disorder"; all completely in the wrong context.

Jfl at toasting your mate

That's why species die early? That's why many members don't reproduce? That's why no sexually reproducing organism looks the same? That why higher sentience creatures like us populate these forums?

All these discrepancies you bring up aren't discrepancies but instead solidify the theory you're arguing against. (The light sensitive thing that he said was obviously not in a biological context lol, it was to show how your half-a-feature thing is really stupid).

Idk what does this have to do with what I said. The fact that many members don't reproduce and that species die early explains why beneficial mutations are passed down, not how complex, discrete mutations come into being from gradual changes

If you use the word 'entropy', you have to mean in a thermodynamic context. The examples you show are insignificant on a universal level, and when you try to generalize that to large populations, it fails (bc the overall disorder increase is the trend that matters, so if certain orderings lead to a more disorderly structure overall, then it still follows proper thermodynamic rules).

I used entropy as a concept, there is no example of anything that tends towards more order on its own. Btw it changes nothing to what I said to begin with

Please tell me you're joking lol, this is a ridiculous simplification of what would actually occur. Single organism soups don't randomly turn into creatures. It happens with millions of transitions over a time scale so large that our minds can't visualize it.

Now just stop trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say that they randomly turned into creatures, but that it's unbelievable that such transitions would occur instead of none. A protein soup however complex doesn't want to survive. Why then doesn't it die out instead of undergoing countless transitions to become a cell.

 

[curryslayerordeath]

You just argued against yourself so you must have read what I wrote wrongly. Read it again

I read everything correctly, I was pointing out that only technology allows for what you describe, hence its not related to evolution.

- Evolution creates order and structure (complexity from simplicity)
- The nature of the universe in your excerpt is to create more disorder.
→ Thus something outside of nature must have created this order.
The universe is trending towards more disorder bc God doesn't intervene. If the nature of the universe is to tend towards disorder then how come something come out of nothing, something that is contained within this same universe?

So the trend towards disorder it what occurs on a universal scale, spanning across everything (including possible life forms and other things we have no clue abt).

If one intermediate construction requires you to go towards more order, but its production will lead to a state of more disorder overall, then it directly corresponds the ideas of thermodynamics.

When you say that "something came out of nothing", it didn't, its merely an intermediate state to cause more disorder in the end (this same phenomena occurs in chemical reactions too).

Expand, don't just say that, give examples and reasonings. You said that transitional life forms are everywhere around us and now you say that. You're being too vague.

Darwin's works were on observing certain larger scale animals and how their traits varied with differing conditions, hence he didn't know how the same evolutionary forces he first theorized were subject to every organism and that there are differing levels. My point was just that he didn't know enough at the time.

This is true, if evolution was proven right it would change nothing to my belief, even to my christian belief. But I still think evolution isn't necessarily true. If you changed my mind then I would be all the wiser.

It doesn't go against god, as some kind of god (or similar deity beyond our means of comprehension) defined this will-to-live and all of the elements around us, but it goes all the religious beliefs that many hold.

Idk what does this have to do with what I said. The fact that many members don't reproduce and that species die early explains why beneficial mutations are passed down, not how complex, discrete mutations come into being from gradual changes

Because you can't tell what's a beneficial mutation or not until it occurs in many organisms and the "gradual change" versions fail to reproduce at the same rate. For those complex, discrete changes to occur, ridiculous amounts of gradual changes occur at each stage, so you only see the overarching result but not the other huge amount of things that had to happen.

In both mitosis and meiosis (or any other type of division), there's plenty of opportunity for genetic material to blend and mix, creating new mixes which could either hold a positive or negative change.

I used entropy as a concept, there is no example of anything that tends towards more order on its own. Btw it changes nothing to what I said to begin with

There are many things that do so; most chemical reactions occur with multiple states, each of which not necessarily trending towards greater entropy (you can search up reference values if you don't think this is true). Your context is wrong here, the strict increase is only on the universal scale, which our planet/existence is puny compared to.

Now just stop trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say that they randomly turned into creatures, but that it's unbelievable that such transitions would occur instead of none. A protein soup however complex doesn't want to survive. Why then doesn't it die out instead of undergoing countless transitions to become a cell.

It does die out, but it creates new ones through reproduction that have more variety, which over a giant scale eventually lead to transitions. There's nothing unbelievable about that.


There was a project I was involved in, where organisms genomes were tracked through multiple changes and you could see the effect of changing a certain variable on later generations outcomes. We use previous data for certain bacteria (and similar things) in a similar manner to develop all of modern medicine, so if this notion is wrong, where did all those developments come from lol? Was I just imagining all of the genome data that I wrote algorithms for?

 

[Matheus]

So the trend towards disorder it what occurs on a universal scale, spanning across everything (including possible life forms and other things we have no clue abt).

If one intermediate construction requires you to go towards more order, but its production will lead to a state of more disorder overall, then it directly corresponds the ideas of thermodynamics.

When you say that "something came out of nothing", it didn't, its merely an intermediate state to cause more disorder in the end (this same phenomena occurs in chemical reactions too).

Okay now I get your point better. Please explain why creating life, let alone creating conscious humans, leads to more disorder on a universal scale.

It doesn't go against god, as some kind of god (or similar deity beyond our means of comprehension) defined this will-to-live and all of the elements around us, but it goes all the religious beliefs that many hold.

Not necessarily, the Catholic Church (I'm a traditionalist but same thing applies) actually holds evolution as a possible theory of our existence

Because you can't tell what's a beneficial mutation or not until it occurs in many organisms and the "gradual change" versions fail to reproduce at the same rate. For those complex, discrete changes to occur, ridiculous amounts of gradual changes occur at each stage, so you only see the overarching result but not the other huge amount of things that had to happen.

In both mitosis and meiosis (or any other type of division), there's plenty of opportunity for genetic material to blend and mix, creating new mixes which could either hold a positive or negative change.

For a mutation to be present in many organisms, it must be beneficial on its own otherwise it doesn't get passed down. If it's neutral then it might take hold but it also might not. Since many mutations are required for a discrete change, the mutations have to be largely beneficial or else the probability of them spreading is negligible. The steps between nothing and even the most basic light-sensitive screen, in the case of eyes, are already countless and not necessarily beneficial.

There was a project I was involved in, where organisms genomes were tracked through multiple changes and you could see the effect of changing a certain variable on later generations outcomes. We use previous data for certain bacteria (and similar things) in a similar manner to develop all of modern medicine, so if this notion is wrong, where did all those developments come from lol? Was I just imagining all of the genome data that I wrote algorithms for?

That's actually a pretty good point. As I said, I think that some form of evolution did happen but that God's will steered it to the way it is with the ultimate intent of creating us conscious beings.

Your other points I either agree with or I don't find it worthwhile to argue. I actually enjoy this "debate" ngl.
Btw you didn't address my point about the lack of archeological evidence for transitional life forms.
Also, what about altruism? How did it come to be?
Also what about the giraffe, for instance? I read that (quoting) "The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves."

 

[curryslayerordeath]

I cba continuing this thread for much more but def wanna respond to this

Okay now I get your point better. Please explain why creating life, let alone creating conscious humans, leads to more disorder on a universal scale.

Look at it from this perspective: for an environment to change and become a more disorderly form, something must exert a disturbance onto it. Early life forms did this to some extent by interacting with their surrounding to produce life-sustaining energy, but nowhere close to the current vast higher form organisms. Does the world today look anything like a simple barren land of billions of years ago? Span this across many different circumstances and time periods across the universe (since we have no clue what occurs at this distance scale) and you can tell how orderly beings create much more disorder in the universe overall. Future, more evolved humans may cross into new areas of space, changing the scenery on a much broader scale than what would've happened if life remained solely prokaryotic.

For a mutation to be present in many organisms, it must be beneficial on its own otherwise it doesn't get passed down. If it's neutral then it might take hold but it also might not. Since many mutations are required for a discrete change, the mutations have to be largely beneficial or else the probability of them spreading is negligible. The steps between nothing and even the most basic light-sensitive screen, in the case of eyes, are already countless and not necessarily beneficial.

This isn't true and is most likely why you're confused on this topic. Mutations occur completely at random. In asexual reproduction (which is mostly found among more primitive, smaller organisms), genetic differences occur because of random passing of material, but since much of life has evolved to a higher form, diversity is much easier to get. Sexual reproduction allows crossing over of traits between the sets of chromosomes, hence every single offspring exhibits a new set of traits, some of which weren't present in either parent. Many things which you consider beneficial mutations are solely traits which have been selected for over time. The non-useful mutations exist and are the majority, its just that you don't notice them because they aren't selected for. Each one of those 'intermediary' steps is solely a matter of probability, eventually leading to changes.

Btw you didn't address my point about the lack of archeological evidence for transitional life forms.

There is plenty of evidence, just that it was collected and studied well after Darwin's time. For example, all those cladograms you see floating around the phenotype-threads on this form are basically dictating transitional forms.

Also, what about altruism? How did it come to be?

To some extent, species tend to survive at higher rates while living/supporting each other in a community form, hence some level of altruism is needed to form successful bonds. However, when pushed to the brinks of survival, humans lose all of that and are back to basic instincts: you can find people fighting each other for their own flesh in order to eat and survive longer, for example. Its a characteristic that is beneficial under good times, but is obviously removed when needed (gruesome and brutal, but true).

Also what about the giraffe, for instance? I read that (quoting) "The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves."

This is dramatized lol, these things don't just suddenly happen, so the overall gradual lengthening was in tandem with methods for transporting of healthy blood coming to. The okapi lives under completely different circumstance so comparison is moot.

 

[Matheus]

I cba continuing this thread for much more but def wanna respond to this

Agreed this is taking up quite some time. You can take the questions in this thread as rhetoric if you want most of them don't explictly require an answer

Look at it from this perspective: for an environment to change and become a more disorderly form, something must exert a disturbance onto it. Early life forms did this to some extent by interacting with their surrounding to produce life-sustaining energy, but nowhere close to the current vast higher form organisms. Does the world today look anything like a simple barren land of billions of years ago? Span this across many different circumstances and time periods across the universe (since we have no clue what occurs at this distance scale) and you can tell how orderly beings create much more disorder in the universe overall. Future, more evolved humans may cross into new areas of space, changing the scenery on a much broader scale than what would've happened if life remained solely prokaryotic.

Ok why not, this doesn't provide an explanation to transitional life forms but I get how you could find evolution believable in this case. I still find it less believable than some form of intelligent design or creation, like I mean where tf did the big bang come from?
Btw I wrote a theory on that if you're interested, it's in french but I might translate it. Basically we live in a black hole in another universe and the big bang was time null where the singularity of said black hole was created in our parent universe. We could be 4d (time + space) holograms inscribed on the event horizon of said black hole in a 5d dimension (space + 1 and time, and the last spatial dimension is our time dimension). Just dropping it here in case you wanna discuss it PM me.
But as some point something must come out from nothing, or something must always have existed. There's always things you can' t explain.

This isn't true and is most likely why you're confused on this topic. Mutations occur completely at random. In asexual reproduction (which is mostly found among more primitive, smaller organisms), genetic differences occur because of random passing of material, but since much of life has evolved to a higher form, diversity is much easier to get. Sexual reproduction allows crossing over of traits between the sets of chromosomes, hence every single offspring exhibits a new set of traits, some of which weren't present in either parent. Many things which you consider beneficial mutations are solely traits which have been selected for over time. The non-useful mutations exist and are the majority, its just that you don't notice them because they aren't selected for. Each one of those 'intermediary' steps is solely a matter of probability, eventually leading to changes.

Yes but, if you need say 1000 specific genetic changes for a light-sensitive screen to appear. That means a given individual or a population must evolve with those. Those are not necessarily beneficial so they will not necessarily spread. If they are neutral then they can stay (not eliminated) but won't spread very easily. It seems to me that such small genetic changes largely will be neutral. Idk how fast and how much mutations happen exactly, but I find it rather unbelievable that all the mutations needed for a discrete change would happen quickly enough for that discrete change to happen, giving the individual a beneficial trait.

There is plenty of evidence, just that it was collected and studied well after Darwin's time. For example, all those cladograms you see floating around the phenotype-threads on this form are basically dictating transitional forms.

Is there evidence of more pronounced transitional life forms? Like creatures with a light sensitive screen (what I meant with half an eye) or such? I mean biology and genetics are real hence the different human groups, but this is not on the same level as evolving from much more primitive life forms. To my knowledge there isn't archeological evidence for such primitive transitional life forms.

To some extent, species tend to survive at higher rates while living/supporting each other in a community form, hence some level of altruism is needed to form successful bonds. However, when pushed to the brinks of survival, humans lose all of that and are back to basic instincts: you can find people fighting each other for their own flesh in order to eat and survive longer, for example. Its a characteristic that is beneficial under good times, but is obviously removed when needed (gruesome and brutal, but true).

Yes that's what I thought when I was an evolutionist but how did it come to be? The first individual to be altruist should obviously be eliminated since he will be taken advantage of. Obviously the change is more gradual, with individuals becoming less and less selfish, but in any given situation the selfish individuals should have an edge regarding survival.

This is dramatized lol, these things don't just suddenly happen, so the overall gradual lengthening was in tandem with methods for transporting of healthy blood coming to. The okapi lives under completely different circumstance so comparison is moot.

Ok why not.

My initial point still stands though. Evolution shouldn't be taught as an absolute dogma, it has holes in it. You have more knowledge than me on this specific subject, and maybe indeed evolution is the closest we have to the truth. But some alternative theories should be looked into as well and children shouldn't be fed evolution the way it's being fed rn, at least I know I was. I see evolution much the say way as I see freudian psychology, albeit to a lesser degree ; a dogma useful to those that want to see what is good and divine disappear from our life, and a theory that tries to find evidence to fit its views, not the other way around.

When I was an evolutionist I thought that God still existed, and that he willed the events in the universe to happen in such a way so as to create us conscious beings, and that the original sin was the first humans gaining the knowledge of good & evil through consciousness and doing evil for the first time in full conscience. And thus genesis is a metaphor for that.

 

[balding17yomanletcel]

booga booga dindi

 

[AbandonShip]

Jfl this thread is still going

 

[Ocelot]

Agreed this is taking up quite some time. You can take the questions in this thread as rhetoric if you want most of them don't explictly require an answer



Ok why not, this doesn't provide an explanation to transitional life forms but I get how you could find evolution believable in this case. I still find it less believable than some form of intelligent design or creation, like I mean where tf did the big bang come from?
Btw I wrote a theory on that if you're interested, it's in french but I might translate it. Basically we live in a black hole in another universe and the big bang was time null where the singularity of said black hole was created in our parent universe. We could be 4d (time + space) holograms inscribed on the event horizon of said black hole in a 5d dimension (space + 1 and time, and the last spatial dimension is our time dimension). Just dropping it here in case you wanna discuss it PM me.
But as some point something must come out from nothing, or something must always have existed. There's always things you can' t explain.



Yes but, if you need say 1000 specific genetic changes for a light-sensitive screen to appear. That means a given individual or a population must evolve with those. Those are not necessarily beneficial so they will not necessarily spread. If they are neutral then they can stay (not eliminated) but won't spread very easily. It seems to me that such small genetic changes largely will be neutral. Idk how fast and how much mutations happen exactly, but I find it rather unbelievable that all the mutations needed for a discrete change would happen quickly enough for that discrete change to happen, giving the individual a beneficial trait.



Is there evidence of more pronounced transitional life forms? Like creatures with a light sensitive screen (what I meant with half an eye) or such? I mean biology and genetics are real hence the different human groups, but this is not on the same level as evolving from much more primitive life forms. To my knowledge there isn't archeological evidence for such primitive transitional life forms.



Yes that's what I thought when I was an evolutionist but how did it come to be? The first individual to be altruist should obviously be eliminated since he will be taken advantage of. Obviously the change is more gradual, with individuals becoming less and less selfish, but in any given situation the selfish individuals should have an edge regarding survival.



Ok why not.

My initial point still stands though. Evolution shouldn't be taught as an absolute dogma, it has holes in it. You have more knowledge than me on this specific subject, and maybe indeed evolution is the closest we have to the truth. But some alternative theories should be looked into as well and children shouldn't be fed evolution the way it's being fed rn, at least I know I was. I see evolution much the say way as I see freudian psychology, albeit to a lesser degree ; a dogma useful to those that want to see what is good and divine disappear from our life, and a theory that tries to find evidence to fit its views, not the other way around.

When I was an evolutionist I thought that God still existed, and that he willed the events in the universe to happen in such a way so as to create us conscious beings, and that the original sin was the first humans gaining the knowledge of good & evil through consciousness and doing evil for the first time in full conscience. And thus genesis is a metaphor for that.

summarised your points:

we don't have all the answers yet
therefore god

mirin very hard

 

[Matheus]

summarised your points:

we don't have all the answers yet
therefore god

mirin very hard

Nope God's existence I infer from other reasonings, not from the fact we don't know where we came from. I know God exists due to aforementioned reasonings, and whether evolution, or creationism, or ID is true doesn't change that fact, only the exact process by which we came to be. Tbh I can't be bothered to keep replying this is taking too much time.

You atheists are so disrespectful do christians constantly spit on you and provoke you? Shit's weird you know idk if atheism makes people bitter

 

[RoundHouse]

niggas out here re-writing the bible

 

[Ocelot]

Nope God's existence I infer from other reasonings, not from the fact we don't know where we came from. I know God exists due to aforementioned reasonings, and whether evolution, or creationism, or ID is true doesn't change that fact, only the exact process by which we came to be. Tbh I can't be bothered to keep replying this is taking too much time.

You atheists are so disrespectful do christians constantly spit on you and provoke you? Shit's weird you know idk if atheism makes people bitter

believe what you want idc stop crying over nothing
"you christians" always generalise and are stupid
See how that sounds?

I'm not going to go over your paragraphs to try and refute whatever reasoning you provided, it's all the same shit over and over again

 

[Matheus]

believe what you want idc stop crying over nothing
"you christians" always generalise and are stupid
See how that sounds?

I'm not going to go over your paragraphs to try and refute whatever reasoning you provided, it's all the same shit over and over again

Christians living rent free in your head lmao. Are you jealous that we've managed to find some meaning in our shit lives? I didn't ask for your opinion and refutation no need to act like a smug

 

[Ocelot]

Christians living rent free in your head lmao. Are you jealous that we've managed to find some meaning in our shit lives? I didn't ask for your opinion and refutation no need to act like a smug

I'm responding to you, the topic is religion, and you are a Christian. So you're "rent free" in my head because I respond? retard.
keep coping with your "meaning" and rubbish you've concocted with mental gymnastics.

 

[curryslayerordeath]

Ok why not, this doesn't provide an explanation to transitional life forms but I get how you could find evolution believable in this case. I still find it less believable than some form of intelligent design or creation, like I mean where tf did the big bang come from?
Btw I wrote a theory on that if you're interested, it's in french but I might translate it. Basically we live in a black hole in another universe and the big bang was time null where the singularity of said black hole was created in our parent universe. We could be 4d (time + space) holograms inscribed on the event horizon of said black hole in a 5d dimension (space + 1 and time, and the last spatial dimension is our time dimension). Just dropping it here in case you wanna discuss it PM me.
But as some point something must come out from nothing, or something must always have existed. There's always things you can' t explain.

We don't know.

Yes but, if you need say 1000 specific genetic changes for a light-sensitive screen to appear. That means a given individual or a population must evolve with those. Those are not necessarily beneficial so they will not necessarily spread. If they are neutral then they can stay (not eliminated) but won't spread very easily. It seems to me that such small genetic changes largely will be neutral. Idk how fast and how much mutations happen exactly, but I find it rather unbelievable that all the mutations needed for a discrete change would happen quickly enough for that discrete change to happen, giving the individual a beneficial trait.

Idk what's so confusing about this, I already answered it above. Statistically, for a population, there would be many organisms with a series of different traits.

Is there evidence of more pronounced transitional life forms? Like creatures with a light sensitive screen (what I meant with half an eye) or such? I mean biology and genetics are real hence the different human groups, but this is not on the same level as evolving from much more primitive life forms. To my knowledge there isn't archeological evidence for such primitive transitional life forms.

Transitional life forms are species themselves, so there's plenty of evidence. If you look up papers on the origin of 'x' species, you can find genetic studies linking back as far as possible.

Yes that's what I thought when I was an evolutionist but how did it come to be? The first individual to be altruist should obviously be eliminated since he will be taken advantage of. Obviously the change is more gradual, with individuals becoming less and less selfish, but in any given situation the selfish individuals should have an edge regarding survival.

Same way that all other changes happen, its not on an isolated individual scale. You're thinking too much about single people rather than a species as a whole.

Inside of being an "evolutionist", read a biosciences textbook and you can see the answers on your own.

My initial point still stands though. Evolution shouldn't be taught as an absolute dogma, it has holes in it. You have more knowledge than me on this specific subject, and maybe indeed evolution is the closest we have to the truth. But some alternative theories should be looked into as well and children shouldn't be fed evolution the way it's being fed rn, at least I know I was. I see evolution much the say way as I see freudian psychology, albeit to a lesser degree ; a dogma useful to those that want to see what is good and divine disappear from our life, and a theory that tries to find evidence to fit its views, not the other way around.

There are no holes, it is absolute. Children aren't being "fed", they're being taught a biological fact, its actually shameful that some religious people won't allow humanity to progress forward in science because of their preconceived notions. If you don't "believe" in it, stop taking vaccines, stop having genetic tests, and completely unplug yourself from the grid; since all of modern medicine hinges on those same ideas.

When I was an evolutionist I thought that God still existed, and that he willed the events in the universe to happen in such a way so as to create us conscious beings, and that the original sin was the first humans gaining the knowledge of good & evil through consciousness and doing evil for the first time in full conscience. And thus genesis is a metaphor for that.

That's no longer anywhere close to any organized religion. It makes all types (christians, muslims, hindus, jews, etc) essentially the same, just that people should learn from the values.

 

[Deleted member 7192]

I realised this now. There's simply not enough time to enjoy life. Your prime is too short and life can only be enjoyed in your prime.

Its beyond over past 30. The ideal time is between 18-30. But most people will spend it studying and then working a job that sucks the life outta them

Life= ultimate jewish scam

ok i will start enjoying my life now good thread

 

[Deleted member 6382]

This comment section on this thread alone proves how many of yall are retarded and have literally no life i just scrolled through the whole comments and from what i see its the same liars faggots retarded ppl spamming and screaming dumb shit that I cant understand yall seriously need help major help but first part of the help is as simple as it gets just kill yourself please

 

[Bewusst]

Sure. It’s definitely lack of time. Gigacope

 

[Matheus]

We don't know.


Idk what's so confusing about this, I already answered it above. Statistically, for a population, there would be many organisms with a series of different traits.


Transitional life forms are species themselves, so there's plenty of evidence. If you look up papers on the origin of 'x' species, you can find genetic studies linking back as far as possible.


Same way that all other changes happen, its not on an isolated individual scale. You're thinking too much about single people rather than a species as a whole.

Inside of being an "evolutionist", read a biosciences textbook and you can see the answers on your own.


There are no holes, it is absolute. Children aren't being "fed", they're being taught a biological fact, its actually shameful that some religious people won't allow humanity to progress forward in science because of their preconceived notions. If you don't "believe" in it, stop taking vaccines, stop having genetic tests, and completely unplug yourself from the grid; since all of modern medicine hinges on those same ideas.


That's no longer anywhere close to any organized religion. It makes all types (christians, muslims, hindus, jews, etc) essentially the same, just that people should learn from the values.

Last time I'll reply this has already gone on for too long. I'll just say we agree to disagree because you still haven't provided a satisfying answer regarding the transitional life forms (there should be intermediate steps between species, and hence fossil evidence of such) and I don't find the population vs individual very convincing, though I get how it statistically works but whatever.

What I want to say however is that you should be wary of calling it a fact. Some parts of evolution are obviously and clearly true, some others need filling. Evolution should be taught, but as what it is, a theory. You know what was taught as a fact in middle ages ? Creationism and geocentrism. We don't necessarily know that much better so we shouldn't pretend. There's arguments on both sides and I was exposed to one side only as a kid. Science, not the method but the institutions, has become the new church and is spitting out its new dogmas. When analyzing both sides I see science as the more malevolent one, in spite the good things it has brought, it will be the tool of our enslavement. Again, my opinion.

Btw what I say is close to organized religions. You do know the Catholic Church considers evolution to be a possible explanation for the process of the creation of life right? The fact I believe in Jesus makes me christian, not whether or not I fact we were created or we evolved

 

[Deleted member 4612]

You'll be way past your prime after that. Ascension is a pipedream. Even if you become chad, how will you explain the drastic change to the people who always saw you as a sub human?

You'll be seen as a narcissistic loser who had to get surgeries to cope with his shitty genetics. I don't understand why people here dont get that.

Being a surgerycel automatically nukes your status in society unless you are a woman

well what if you're already a loser?

 

[Deleted member 275]

Agepill is the most brutal. Ascending beyond your mid20s is so fucking utterly worthless. Better than not ascending, but still.