Total posts: 1,814
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
That article says nothing about mutations and natural selection being insufficient at explaining macroevolution. It is about epigenetics. The idea is that an organism's behavior and environment can, to a limited extent, affect certain traits inherited by its descendants. The vast majority of change over long periods of time, however, are still explicable by natural selection. Epigenetics just acts as a fine-tuning knob on that evolution.
No, the article is not that evident, that is right. If you read again it refers to Darwininsm, meaning random mutation and natural selection.
The article points out that a naturalist perspective is not enough to explain evolution, because epigenetics have proved it wrong.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Considering your OP, is talking about how macro evolution can’t be considered as a series of changes as it can only be driven of existing DNA - I explained that this is not the case - that major morphological changes are by definition explainable by small changes if you understand how organism development works.
I think you didn't notice that there are not just "small changes" in evolution theory anymore. Actually, scientists talk about two kind of changes, micromutations and macromutations. Guess why they introduced that terminology, because they weren't able to explain the large gap between fossils, so they made up the term "macromutation" which could satisfy the flaws of Darwinism.
If you see in detail this theory you will realise it's just a fancy attempt to explain the unexplainable, there is no way to explain macroevolution with random mutations and natural selection, leta alone with macromutations. The natural perspective scientists use to approach evolution is useless and short-sighted.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I thought the OP was clear. But let's get started again anyway.
The point is not whether evolution happened or not. I already said it, evolution is a fact. What I try to point out here is that the mechanisms that try to explain it are insufficient, or even more they are unfit for explaining evolution. Your post didn't address it, not one bit. What you just did is show what we all know, that there has been evolution. But let's see it a little closer,
The main problem you have is you have a massively naive and oversimplistic understanding of organism development. You’re viewing DNA as if a trait is a thing you can trace to a definable gene. Sure, eye colour is traceable to a gene, hair colour too: but an arm? There is no arm gene, there are thousands of different genes that turn on and turn off in a particular combination and order: yielding an arm - but also contribute to legs, chest, neck and others.The building blocks of the arm? Genes that mediate proteins that are unique to Skin cells, bone, veins, muscles, tendons, etc: have barely changed.In that sense the idea that an “arm” is genetically much different than a wing is nonsensical. They’re pretty much the same thing just with different gene expressions controlled by very mutable genes that we can see changing in all animals today.
Show me please where I said an "arm gene" or something like that. I refered to traits as genetic information in a broad sense, and I didn't get into details.
For example let’s start with an antelope type creature.It loses its hair, it’s nose gets smaller and higher - I’m sure just micro evolution of traits. It’s legs get smaller, it’s hands get bigger. The layer of fat beneath its skin gets thicker, it’s lungs get bigger, tail gets longer and flatter. The back legs get so small they are invisible.And oops - you now have a whale from an antelope. There’s no major leaps, no new traits - just minor changes in size and shape that we have substantial and ample experimental and observational evidence to know can easily change.Take a Fish, make the skeleton at the tip of the fins more boney, thin the lining of the swim bladder, harden the scales, make the central fin spin thicker, and point all boney spins downwards From the end of the fin - and increase the size of swim bladder and - oops you have an amphibian.
Alright, what you forgot to explain is how it did happened, because you're explaining evolution as if animals were plasticine that you can mold at will. Besides, it's not just a morphological change, there are physiological changes as well.
The big question is if random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to truly explain what you just described. The answer is no, as this article explains (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong). Synthetic Theory is so plain and simplistic that common sense seems to reject it. The major problem of it is that scientists consider the dissenting arguments as blasphemy, and that could limit further findings.
So, going back to the Synthetic Theory, what we have so far is just a bunch of explanations and hypothesis, like macromutation or Punctuated Equilibria, coming from several disciplines trying to synthesize all in one theory, but to be honest there is no such a unique explanation. No scientist would explain macroevolution because of a simple reason, there is no way to do that.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think "an arm is totally different to a wing" is debatable!
Keith, use your critical thinking please, and don't let your beliefs mislead you.
It's not just a morphological difference. Having a wing is not just to have an "arm" with feathers, which is already a great difference, but it's also to have the knowhow of flying written in the genetic code.
And if you go further, you will see that flying needs an engineering system which is a set of information that doesn't appear magically.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
There have been thousands of different religions throughout human history. Everyone thinks they are right. How likely is it that EVERYONE has the truth? About zero.
Proof that truth is relative.
Think about it, how can people follow their God's morals if they don't believe their religion has the truth? There is no way, so they have to believe it's true anyway.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I mean new genetic information should be created because an arm is totally different to a wing. It's not the same as the skin color that adapt to the environment because this adaptation is written in the DNA code. In contrast, for big changes like the arm/wing, the genes might need to be changed, but the genetic information is going to be new because it wasn't in the DNA code before.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I never hide like YOU.. already know. Right, Dan? Lol.
If I had wanted to hide I wouldn't have revealed information about DDO as I actually did, that is why EtrnlVw recognised me.
As to the "over the top claims", I've never stated something that I can't explain or debate.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
Before going on with the matter at hand, I want to make clear that this thread is not meant to stir things up. I understand that this kind of subjects usually tend to divide opinions according to people's beliefs. Broadly speaking, religious people would stand for creationism (if ithere is such thing in the scientific community), and atheists would stand for the many theories of evolution that exist out there. As I don't stand for any of them, I will give my informed, unbiased opinion as to what I know about the subject, which is not little. You're free to dissent as long as you do it with respect and without bias.
1. With the fossils found thus far, it's undenieable that evolution did come about. NEVERTHELESS, evolution doesn't mean that species evolved by themselves or evolved out of nothing. There are yet unknown mechanisms that triggered such changes, especially the big ones, meanwhile we have some theories that attempt to explain this evolution, one of them is the Synthetic theory based principally on mutation and natural selection, which is the most accepted among scientists, and also the most controversial. However, many people still confuse the concept of evolution with the theories that try to explain it. Evolution is a fact, what it's not a fact yet is the mechanisms of change that made evolution possible. That being said, if I disagree with the postulate of one of these theories, like for example the Synthetic theory, these confused people would get jumpy inmediately and will accuse me of being a creationst or even worse of being a religious guy, which would be a fallacy.
2. It's useless to explain the differences between microevolution and macroevolution, so I will make it short. Microevolution is more of an adaptation to the environment in which mutuation and natural selection play an important role. However, contrary to what people believe, microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution or speciation because of one simple reason, animals micro-evolve to develop traits they already hold on their DNA, like for example the skin's or fur's color which can change, but a terrestrial animal can't grow wings to fly because this trait should be created at DNA level or be taken from somewhere. In other words, the Synthetic theory of evolution can't explain macroevolution, or in other case the theory is incomplete.
It is fair to say then that the most accepted theory of evolution has problems to explain the speciation and hence the evolution. As a result, scientists should acknowledge humbly that natural selection and mutuation are prone to criticism. What I observe nowadays though is that scientists consider the Synthetic theory as true and unique, and any attempt to criticise the orthodox theory, as I actually do, could be refuted by the false argument that it comes from creationists or religious people, which is not true.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And you must be bullpoop. You really enjoy pity, don't you?
Get a life, dude!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Still waiting on the refutation of Evolution you kept on about for so long, that is, until you had to leave ddo for having to endure the humiliation of making that claim. It's no wonder you're here under a new account. Hilarious.
You really missed me, didn't you, oldy?
No wonder now why you struggle too much to debate with others, you have the brain of a chicken. But still, it's really funny to have you here. What would we do without you!! Lol.
Have a nice happy new year, oldy. Take care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yeah, it's me, Archaholic. It's good to see you again.
But what do you mean Goldtop is not here? I see the Goldtop of here is the same stupid guy that I used to endure on DDO.
Created:
Mopac is right. To women, breeding entails having less time to get educated or work, and as a consequence less chances to maintain or increase her social status. So, the higher status women have, the harder they have to work which means postpone or limit the number of children they are willing to have.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You have taught us much, that your beliefs are insane and dangerous to humanity, offering post after post of hard evidence to that fact, that it has destroyed your mind and is causing you to be a very bad person.
Get out of here, troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Are you by any chance this dude that used to love everyone on DDO?
I remember someone who claimed to love Goldtop. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Lol, you'll just say anything at this point. Better quit while you're so far behind.
It's because you have serious problems with reading comprehension. Thank you for resolving this doubt I had about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I did elaborate, showing how you were incapable of thinking when you offered nonsense instead of fact.
Really? Let me see, you said 10% of Christians are in the US. So what? What did this piece of information show? You would have explained at least what you wanted to say because this data doesn't say that much.
Or are you trying to say that in developed countries people are not Christian? Let's see, almost 75% of Europeans are Christians, which is a fact. Isn't it at odds with what you have said?
You're either a troll or you have serious problems with reading comprehension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I did elaborate, showing how you were incapable of thinking when you offered nonsense instead of fact.
Really? Let me see, you said 10% of Christians are in the US. So what? What did this piece of information show? You would have explained at least what you wanted to say because this data doesn't say that much.
Or are you trying to say that in developed countries people are not Christian? Let's see, almost 75% of Europeans are Christians, which is a fact. Isn't it at odds with what you have said?
You're either a troll or you have serious problems with reading comprehension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'd say almost all of that progress is the result of abandoming religion and adopting secular rationlism.
This was just a change of regime, people still had the same values and beliefs though. Church lost its power, that is right, but not its influence. So Chrsitianity has remained as a moral and ethical asset for Western Civilization, which was an important motivation to progress.
I would read about protestantism and how it influenced the United States.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I didn't see any elaboration on your post. I'm sorry.
Keep trying, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But this is la raison d'etre of Christianity. Jesus said it, or I don't know who was, that Christians should please God.
Am I wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But, I agree with you. I mean, you call it different, but at the end the results and emotions are the same anyway. For you is pure love with the mind, soul or whatever it is. To me, which is what anyone can see, this is brain washing.
I insist, this is what I deep down want, zealots that behave like ants working hard to please the queen, well, in this case please the "God".
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Could you elaborate, please? I mean, if you're capable of doing it. Because as much as we can see, the Western Civilization is still the most advanced culture humans have ever achieved in terms of economics, technology, politics, values, and so on.
Please, elaborate. Make a liitle bit of effort, I know you can do it.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Yes, I sign my posts using my username, so what?
I don't know what it is more ridiculous, signing like this or being a complete ignorant like you?
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Detached from God, these "moral principles" are not really Christian.The letter kills, the spirit gives life.
I guess you mean with people who are devoted to Christianity those principles are true Christian. Yes, I totally agree, humanity needs this kind of people, zealots that trust in "Christian God's words" and follow their commandments blindly. You know, people are so gullible that I'd really prefer they were Christian rather than Muslims or other potential dangerous religion.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Didn't you realize that "Il Diavolo" means "the devil"?
I bet you're American. Lol.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
Never trust in just one source. A good practice is use all of them and then draw your own conclusions. The more sources you have the better your conclusions are.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You do realise that all that you claim to support are the ideas of ignorant, primitive superstitious savages? Good luck with that.
Lol.
You really live up to your username.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
Christian morality perhaps. I used to be Christian because I was raised in a Christian home, but I'm not any more. Christian beliefs make no sense at all nowadays, in general religions make no sense in our times. However I believe its moral principles should remain, I somehow feel that this is the best way to build a strong society and family, contrary to Islam principles for example which are a threat for humanity.
That way, I support several Christian ideas, for example, against abortion, homosexuality, gender ideology, and all this rubbish that will destroy our society. I would say Christianity is the best thing that ever happened to Western civilization.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
How would you know without asking every one individual what there reason was for belief? That sounds like a subjective opinion to me.
It's not necessary to ask. You've got to read something about the history of religions. Do you know all this story about Jesus is just a copy of prior religions? There is nothing in the Gospels that hadn't been said before.
Religions are a sort of belief system that human beings have been building in order to satisfy their needs. People need to belief, they crave a God, it's in their DNA. I would say that it's a basic need, like food, shelter, clothing, and sex.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I wouln't say "incapable". This is a baseless judgement you do from your anti-religious point of view, which is trustless.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
According to who? to you?
I don't know if you're atheist, but you're antireligious for sure.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
One of the most interesting things about spirituality most unbelievers are unaware of,...
I have very little time to elaborate on that but I really appreciate you bringing up this subject since there is some confusion about it.
Firstly, spirituality is not religion and religion is not spirituality. I have never denied the spiritual dimension of human beings, I embrace it, though. You should know that even though I call myself "the devil", I'm a fervient follower of buddhism. I actually practice meditation and some praying as a way to reach the spiritual enlightment, but I know it's going to take really long. At any rate, when it comes to spirituality many people confuse it with what religions are used to show us, like Gods, angels and deamons. No, spirituality is not about paranormal experience, let alone about invisible beings watching us. Rather, it is a way to know us, to discover our nature and what we really are. It's explore our mind in order to connect with the whole universe, and feel what people define as happiness.
On the other hand, religions are completely different. I will take on that later because I don't have time. The only thing I'm going to say so you can think about it is that religions are a human construction based on the basic principles of spirituality, but aimed to satisfy the needs of the ignorant masses, mostly changing and distorting those pristine principles. For example, Jesus was a simple mortal, like you and me, who wanted to teach the real spirituality to his community, but failed to do that because his people not only deifed him but also distorted his teachings conflating them with judaism, resulting in a new religion called Christianism.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I know what you're talking about, the so called religious experience. I tell you, I've met a lot of people who experienced it, but I could count them on the fingers of one hand. If we talk about buddhists, that would be different.Spirituality/religion is not just a coping "mechanism", there is an objective nature to Theism and therefor there are facts that deal with the nature of our experience. Spirituality is not really a method to minimize or to cope/tolerate stress or fears in as much as it is a method of understanding the nature of our being itself, not just a coping mechanism but learning and applying what is necessary about reality itself.
My point is that in general the ignorant masses use religion as a coping mechanism, or even as a life motivator. That is why the abrahamic religions are so popular.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Being afraid of hell is a moral issue, it has nothing to do with what I'm discussing here, which is people's problems.
I'm talking about "holes to fill", which means people who feel empty inside, or have emotional problems derived from a particular event, like a disease or a loss of a loved one. Going to church is just a choice to overcome that problem, religions don't create those problems.
If you refer to hell as a way to create a moral issue in people, that is another thing, which by the way I totally agree.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm sorry, what did you say?
I would like to remind you that I'm not used to this vocabulary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
No, religions merely mask problems, they don't actually deal with or solve them. It's basically exchanging one vice for another.
I didn't say otherwise. If you read my post again I said that religion is a tool that help to cope with common problems, even with big ones. People can avoid distress if they believe there is a God that will save them, there it is the psychological effect of religions. Whether it solves their problems or not, I don't kwno. What I'm pretty sure is that people can think clearly to solve their problems when they stay calm, and religions can give that tranquility.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I would't know what to say because I don't see myself as a religious guy. I'm very honest and I feel uncapable of decieving others.
But if you see all these preachers from various religions you will notice that all of them sell a solution to people's problems. or in other words they promise "fill the hole". They don't make any hole, people come with a hole already. "You can't walk? Geezes will cure you". "You have problems with your wife? Geezes will fix it." Haha. I don't mean religions are useless, they are necessary though. It's a sort of tool to cope with human problems.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
This is all about concepts, and as far as I'm concerned the soul is, say, the vital energy that makes us living beings. This vital energy is just a way to explain why we are alive philosphical speaking, but in reality we don't know yet what mechanisms make us alive. So, with that description, animals have soul as well. Hence, humans have always had souls, because before attaining the final stage of human evolution they had souls already.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@Castin
My guess is that Satanists are former Christians that never got satisfied by their God. As a consequence, they defy his authority doing things that the Christian God doesn't like.
I disagree with the argument that Satanists are atheists because to be a Satanist one should believe in the existence of God.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Satan and the Devil are not the same. There is no Devil or Hell fire in the Jewish faith system.
If you mean in terms of traits, they're different indeed. But both in essense are the same, they tempt people.
Created:
Posted in:
As soon as I saw the phrase "fundamental conciousness" I stopped reading.
Religions define God as a powerful, omnipresent, and ubiquitous being which seems to be something pulled out from a fairy tale.
Il Diavolo
Created:
This is almost a atheism vs theism debate. There will always be a bit of bias on the vote.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
It's not about trust. You just need to read the history of humanity and you will see that what I said makes a lot of sense.
Knowledge is freedom. Ignorance is slavery.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Huh!! A thread dedicated to me at last, I was starting to feel a bit anxious. I have several things to say but I really don't know where to start off.
1. First of all, I don't exist in the real world. I mean, I do but in an abstract way. You know, people oftentimes use metaphors to explain things that are difficult to understand. So, who am I? I'm just a concept that describes the evil escence of human beings. I inhabit each human mind that ever walked on this planet. I am, in simple words, the human ego, the only oponent that ever existed for human beings. Because of me people crave power and fortune. Ahhh, poor people, because of me they are killing each other and making the world a horrible place. I always wonder how long this is going to last.
2. People usually confuse me with disgusting characters, like a red creature with corns and a big fork. This is all bs. All this stuff started to appear, if the memory serves me correctly, in the Renaissance, when the church used the arts (painting and sculpture) to describe their already untenable beliefs in a way to attract more believers.
3. You might be wondering why people think the devil is an invisible monster always tricking them. Well, this is all about psychological projection. As you know this is a defense mechanism that people's subconciousness use to cope with their tough feelings. People are uncapable to admit that all the shet they do in this world is their fault simply because that would entail an unbearable remorse. So, people project their moronic acts to an another being, which is the devil. People did not create the devil, they just redefined it for their benefit.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
How can you say Islam is neutral if the muslims conquered half the world?
What happened to you, Keith? I thought you were more rational.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
And the higher the gay relationships... :)
Created:
Posted in:
It is worth it. What it's not worthwhile is marriage, so try to steer clear of it.
Enjoy your life, son.
Il Diavolo
Created: