Evolution is False

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:11 pm

uwot wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Some years back, my offspring would ask questions, like why do rainbows have their colors? Having a degree in physics I knew the answer.
I don't think a degree in physics is necessary, a prism and a bit of info about the refractive index is plenty.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Having a functional mind I also realized that I could not explain light refraction and the human eye's interpretation of electromagnetic energy wavelengths to people who had not mastered calculus or taken some serious university level physics courses.
Neither Leibniz nor Newton claimed that calculus could explain our perception of colour. There are mathematicians who make, in my view, absurd claims about maths, that mathematical entities are 'real', for instance, but that's just naïve realism with sums on, and the people making such claims are philosophically stunted.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Those questions appeared before any of the little buggers had seen the inside of a schoolroom.
And I'm sure you didn't wait twenty years of education to answer them. You simply do not need to understand maths to understand what happens. If it doesn't demonstrably happen, there is no reason to nail your colours to the mast and insist it does. That is true regardless of how coherent or beautiful your story or mathematical description. It is also true of beon theory.
Drat, Uwot!

I fired up the internet in good spirits, only to be treated to quibbles and bits from one of the few guys on this thread who says something interesting, sometimes.

I never did explain rainbows to my offspring. By the time that they were old enough to understand an honest explanation, they'd discovered sex. I subscribed to various magazines back then, Physics Today, Sci.American, and Playboy. Plus, a small library. The "Playboy" magazines were the only literature in the entire house that they found interesting. Go figure. One actually enrolled in college physics and proved unqualified, so moved elsewhere and is currently a psychic. They didn't care about rainbows anymore. I still do, and do not have enough life left in me to fully understand all aspects of them. I once saw a triple rainbow, in the desert. Awesome!

About five years ago I'd have agreed completely with your first quibble, in that I could have "explained" diffraction amid my first physics course. Of course it would have been stupid of me to pull out my handy pocket prism and use its refractive effects to explain rainbows, because refraction and diffraction are entirely different phenomena. Using a prism analogy would have been incorrect, and I did not bullshit my offspring. (Except about Santa Claus, at wife's behest. Big mistake.)

Five years ago I took a closer look at the behavior of light in the context of dark energy, and realized that there were some things about light that were not addressed in that first course, or in others that delved more deeply into electromagnetism.

For example, we know that light changes velocity when moving through a medium such as glass. Upon leaving the medium, it instantly moves at its original velocity. Why? This simple phenomenon proves that the old "aether" concept is valid.

Your second quibble did indeed point out an error on my part. There was no need to write anything about our perception of light. That was not part of the kid's question, and having no comprehension of biochemistry or microbiology back then, I could not have addressed the mysteries of light perception. I knew about the existence of retinal "rods" and "cones," but so what? So, you're right.

Finally, I'd appreciate an elaboration of your last three sentences. I don't fully understand them in their context.

I treat mathematics as a language, although a more precisely detailed language than those with which humans use to communicate. It is also the only common language. It is also connected to geometry, and provides us with what is sometimes the only way to describe certain geometric forms, such as ellipses, parabolas, etc., as well as time-dependent geometric forms such as sine waves. Therein lies the relationship between math and physics, because our universe appears to be constructed from small and large structures with various geometrical forms.

Now this may not be the case. If the geometries that we think we see in the physical universe are not real, as some QM theorists propose, then mathematics as we know it does not describe reality.

Thank you for your thoughts and corrections. This has been interesting.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:40 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote: Some years back, my offspring would ask questions, like why do rainbows have their colors? Having a degree in physics I knew the answer. Having a functional mind I also realized that I could not explain light refraction and the human eye's interpretation of electromagnetic energy wavelengths to people who had not mastered calculus or taken some serious university level physics courses. Those questions appeared before any of the little buggers had seen the inside of a schoolroom.

My non-replies are the result of nothing interesting from you, to which I might reply, that you might comprehend. I'll be frank. You are, IMO, the intellectual equivalent of an ignorant dolt who is determined to stay that way.

I'm only replying to this for the benefit of any forum lurkers who might take your comments seriously and think me remiss by my response neglect.

Greylorn
It's a shame that your (ahem!) "university" who granted you your "degree' did not teach you the most fundamental philosophy of science: that science offers answers in the "How" category, and is not interested in teleological "why" answers that brain-dead religionists have been verbally masturbating over fruitlessly since humans learned language.

There is no "why" rainbows have colours. But there is a massive understanding from physics and biology as to "how" it is that we can see colours. When you grow up maybe you will figure out the difference.
Hey, Munchkin! I'm up! Really. I know that science addresses "how" questions, or used to do so. But kids ask "why" questions. I posed my comments in that context. Were you dropped off on this planet from an alien spacecraft, or what?

Since you've apparently been too busy watching TV or chatting with your controllers on the mothership to notice, science has stopped dealing exclusively with "how" questions (i.e. cause-effect relationships) with the onset of Darwinism, then QM. Big Bang theory has pretty much flushed science's "how" credibility.

For example, how did the first living cell come into existence? How do atomic particles spontaneously appear out of "nothing?" How did the mysterious "singularity," the tiny, undefinable lump containing all the mass-energy in our universe spontaneously appear out of nothingness? What caused it to blow up and create our universe?

There are no honest answers to these "how" questions-- just pseudo-science bullshit. If the "how" of an event cannot be answered, we are left with the "why" of it.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:55 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Some years back, my offspring would ask questions, like why do rainbows have their colors? Having a degree in physics I knew the answer. Having a functional mind I also realized that I could not explain light refraction and the human eye's interpretation of electromagnetic energy wavelengths to people who had not mastered calculus or taken some serious university level physics courses. Those questions appeared before any of the little buggers had seen the inside of a schoolroom.
Your memory appears to be giving you trouble as you've already said this before and my reply is the same, I taught mine the same way Newton learnt and explained that raindrops act a little like prisms. You also appear out of date as it's all to do with electrons and photons and if they ever really want to have a slightly better lay understanding I'll give them Feynman's QED.
My non-replies are the result of nothing interesting from you, to which I might reply, that you might comprehend.
So you always say when faced with providing explanations to the problematic parts of your metaphysic.
I'll be frank. You are, IMO, the intellectual equivalent of an ignorant dolt who is determined to stay that way.
And I'll be Larry, in my opinion you are yet another in a long line of those who canot shake their deep religious programming but found it unacceptable with their education so have cobbled together a metaphysical explanation to deal with their cognitive dissonance. That its a rehash of Lebiniz's Monadology and has the same problems, i.e. unprovavble, just goes to show that the philosophically uneducated abound on weeb philosophy forums and Kant has never been heard of.
I'm only replying to this for the benefit of any forum lurkers who might take your comments seriously and think me remiss by my response neglect.
Let's hope they see that once again you ignore any conversation about your ideas. So still awaiting your recalculations of genome creation with the factors of NS involved and possible rates of chemical change. I also note that elswhere you've once again repeated that Biology has no theories for Abogenesis and once again ignored my links that show you are wrong. RNA world anyone?
I've not ignored your links. I followed them to their irrelevant dead ends.

There are lots of abiogenesis theories. I thought that real science was built around experiments, or theories that can be tested. None of those qualified.

Darwinism itself fails all attempts to experimentally verify it. Random mutation has been tried by irradiating fruit flies. As predicted, randomly scrambling the DNA of fruit flies produces some really weird bugs-- four eyes, extra wings, etc. However, when the four-eyed flies are carefully mated with other four-eyed flies, etc., so as to generate a new species, after a few generations the offspring revert to normal flies. That's honest experimental science. Check it out for yourself.

Notice, then, that biological science doesn't believe its own, experimentally generated anti-Darwinist evidence. The motto of these religious nits appears to be, Don't let mere evidence stand in the way of a good theory. They are as mindless and as irrelevant as the Pope.

Greylorn

uwot
Posts: 4400
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Evolution is False

Post by uwot » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:08 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:Drat, Uwot!

I fired up the internet in good spirits, only to be treated to quibbles and bits from one of the few guys on this thread who says something interesting, sometimes.
I try my best. I do understand the difference between refraction and diffraction, at least as they are understood on this side of the pond. Here diffraction is the spreading of a wave as it passes through an aperture about the width of the incident wavelength, so that it acts as a point source. My kids never asked, but had they done so, I should have told them that diffraction has bugger all to do with rainbows.
Greylorn Ell wrote:...we know that light changes velocity when moving through a medium such as glass.
Or water. Over here we build our rainbows by passing sunlight through raindrops, so that the light is refracted, much like a prism. Some of the light is reflected off the internal boundary of the raindrop straight back at you, which is rainbows are always behind you with respect to the sun.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Upon leaving the medium, it instantly moves at its original velocity. Why? This simple phenomenon proves that the old "aether" concept is valid.
You've got to get over this 'proof' nonsense. Phenomena don't prove theses, they are consistent with them and at best support them. "This simple phenomenon" only proves that light speeds up as it passes from glass to air.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Finally, I'd appreciate an elaboration of your last three sentences. I don't fully understand them in their context.
In my view, the reason things are the way they are is to do with physics, rather than maths. To give one, perhaps not very good example, raindrops are spherical, because that's the shape that minimises surface area, and surface tension, which we don't need to explain at this juncture, pulls them into that shape. We can describe the shape and the forces mathematically, but if there is no raindrop, the maths is about nothing. Which a lot of maths is. Long story short, I think Plato was wrong. As it happens, I'm working on a page for my blog http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/ on this very subject, (actually, I'm getting slowly pickled in the run up to Christmas, my head is throbbing as I write) but you can see a rough sketch here viewtopic.php?f=20&t=14176&start=15

User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Lev Muishkin » Thu Dec 18, 2014 6:01 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote: For example, how did the first living cell come into existence? How do atomic particles spontaneously appear out of "nothing?" How did the mysterious "singularity," the tiny, undefinable lump containing all the mass-energy in our universe spontaneously appear out of nothingness? What caused it to blow up and create our universe?

There are no honest answers to these "how" questions-- just pseudo-science bullshit. If the "how" of an event cannot be answered, we are left with the "why" of it.

Greylorn
Why the fuck are you even bothering to ask those questions when you already have your answer, cooked up by Neolithic goat herders thousands of years BC?

You need to bugger off and accept your answer, and let the big boys accept that it might be okay to accept that we might never be able to answer those question, and that it is also okay to reject idiotic divine explanations that your motley crew are satisfied with.

There is no "why" except in the case of intentional actions. Think about it!

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:24 pm

uwot wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Drat, Uwot!

I fired up the internet in good spirits, only to be treated to quibbles and bits from one of the few guys on this thread who says something interesting, sometimes.
I try my best. I do understand the difference between refraction and diffraction, at least as they are understood on this side of the pond. Here diffraction is the spreading of a wave as it passes through an aperture about the width of the incident wavelength, so that it acts as a point source. My kids never asked, but had they done so, I should have told them that diffraction has bugger all to do with rainbows.
Greylorn Ell wrote:...we know that light changes velocity when moving through a medium such as glass.
Or water. Over here we build our rainbows by passing sunlight through raindrops, so that the light is refracted, much like a prism. Some of the light is reflected off the internal boundary of the raindrop straight back at you, which is rainbows are always behind you with respect to the sun.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Upon leaving the medium, it instantly moves at its original velocity. Why? This simple phenomenon proves that the old "aether" concept is valid.
You've got to get over this 'proof' nonsense. Phenomena don't prove theses, they are consistent with them and at best support them. "This simple phenomenon" only proves that light speeds up as it passes from glass to air.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Finally, I'd appreciate an elaboration of your last three sentences. I don't fully understand them in their context.
In my view, the reason things are the way they are is to do with physics, rather than maths. To give one, perhaps not very good example, raindrops are spherical, because that's the shape that minimises surface area, and surface tension, which we don't need to explain at this juncture, pulls them into that shape. We can describe the shape and the forces mathematically, but if there is no raindrop, the maths is about nothing. Which a lot of maths is. Long story short, I think Plato was wrong. As it happens, I'm working on a page for my blog http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/ on this very subject, (actually, I'm getting slowly pickled in the run up to Christmas, my head is throbbing as I write) but you can see a rough sketch here viewtopic.php?f=20&t=14176&start=15
Uwot,

It's a good thing that I did not try to tell my offspring how diffraction causes rainbows. Thank you for the corrections. :? Yes, 'tis the season to write when pickled.

I disagreed w/Plato on all things, and appreciate your take on the relevance of mathematics. Noticing that your examples involve geometry, we might usefully explore the bedfellow relationship between math, geometry, and physics.

BTW I recommend large doses of B-vitamins to avoid the headaches associated with an ethanol overdose. Also don't eat wheat if your blood is Type-O.

Checked out your blog, thank you. We share similar curiosities and interests. Do you have a little bio posted somewhere?

Greylorn

DNA James
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:42 am

Re: Evolution is False

Post by DNA James » Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:47 am

Lev Muishkin wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote: For example, how did the first living cell come into existence? How do atomic particles spontaneously appear out of "nothing?" How did the mysterious "singularity," the tiny, undefinable lump containing all the mass-energy in our universe spontaneously appear out of nothingness? What caused it to blow up and create our universe?

There are no honest answers to these "how" questions-- just pseudo-science bullshit. If the "how" of an event cannot be answered, we are left with the "why" of it.

Greylorn
Why the fuck are you even bothering to ask those questions when you already have your answer, cooked up by Neolithic goat herders thousands of years BC?

You need to bugger off and accept your answer, and let the big boys accept that it might be okay to accept that we might never be able to answer those question, and that it is also okay to reject idiotic divine explanations that your motley crew are satisfied with.

There is no "why" except in the case of intentional actions. Think about it!
You need to face the reality, that the entire evolutionary tree is based upon a single page where Darwin scribbled, I think....... http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua ... rticle.jpg If he understood DNA, he would have thought different.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:33 pm

DNA James wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:
Why the fuck are you even bothering to ask those questions when you already have your answer, cooked up by Neolithic goat herders thousands of years BC?

You need to bugger off and accept your answer, and let the big boys accept that it might be okay to accept that we might never be able to answer those question, and that it is also okay to reject idiotic divine explanations that your motley crew are satisfied with.

There is no "why" except in the case of intentional actions. Think about it!
You need to face the reality, that the entire evolutionary tree is based upon a single page where Darwin scribbled, I think....... http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua ... rticle.jpg If he understood DNA, he would have thought different.
James,

It's good to know that not everyone is a fervent Darwinist. Do you happen to have a translation of the handwriting on that page? My eyes are not good enough to decipher it.

I don't know your broader ideas on this and related subjects. I figure that if the "how" answers do not work, what else except to seek a good "why," one that is different from the old omnipotent God concept? Of course this is a variation on the oft-used Sherlock Holmes principle about eliminating the obvious possibilities and going with whatever is left over, however unlikely it may appear.

Greylorn

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11988
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:51 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:I don't know your broader ideas on this and related subjects. I figure that if the "how" answers do not work, what else except to seek a good "why," one that is different from the old omnipotent God concept? Of course this is a variation on the oft-used Sherlock Holmes principle about eliminating the obvious possibilities and going with whatever is left over, however unlikely it may appear.

Greylorn
Or you could just knock-up a metaphysic based upon one's favourite subjects that fits one's pre-programmed beliefs, doesn't make it true though.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:37 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:I don't know your broader ideas on this and related subjects. I figure that if the "how" answers do not work, what else except to seek a good "why," one that is different from the old omnipotent God concept? Of course this is a variation on the oft-used Sherlock Holmes principle about eliminating the obvious possibilities and going with whatever is left over, however unlikely it may appear.

Greylorn
Or you could just knock-up a metaphysic based upon one's favourite subjects that fits one's pre-programmed beliefs, doesn't make it true though.
AUK,

You are exactly right. What you describe is exactly what I did when confronted with excellent challenges to the Catholic beliefs with which I'd been programmed, back in 1960. I wanted to believe the bullshit that I'd been taught for the previous 12+ years. So I knocked up a metaphysical scheme overnight that dealt with my problem, and arose somewhat bleary-eyed in time to get some breakfast, lots of coffee, and make it to my morning EE class, then on to physics and math classes. Those classes, and others to follow over the next four years, offered me some balance.

Additional balance was provided by the skeptical, atheistic, and highly intelligent Ph.Ds with and for whom I worked for the next ten years after graduation. These wonderful men did a lot of intellectual ass-kicking. So I gave up my absurd Catholic beliefs. I might have done so much sooner if one of my physics professors, or even an atheistic and thoughtful student, had pointed out that Jesus' transformation of water into wine would have required the nuclear synthesization of hydrogen and oxygen into sulfur, iron, nitrogen, potassium, sodium, etc.-- a process that would have ruined the wine. The inferior wine would not have been noticed, however, because the energy released during its creation would have vaporized Jerusalem and its imbibing inhabitants.

Whatever, I've engaged better than a half-century of unpaid time and thought into tidying up my knocked-up overnight metaphysical theory. Perhaps like the father of an unanticipated and unwanted offspring sometimes chooses to take responsibility for its upbringing and support, especially if it was born butt-ugly, crippled, and unwanted.

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Gee » Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:26 am

WanderingLands;

I have been reading your very interesting thread off and on, and my computer is working at the moment, so I wanted to respond while I can. First I should state that I know little about evolution beyond the meaning of the word, and I have never studied it -- Darwinian or otherwise.

You have taken a lot of hits regarding your statements about the comparison of chromosomes in apes and humans. Everyone thinks you should study your science. Bullshit. If science wanted us to understand their theory of evolution, they would have made it clear. As you noted, Wiki seems to show a relationship, and if you look up evolution in Wiki, you will find a human, chimp, ape, and an orangutan all listed under "common descent". If you look at kids shows on TV, or in a child's textbook, or in a museum, you will find that very popular painting of a small crawly type of specie that gradually grows into a sort of ape, then a kind of caveman, and then a human. It is EVERYWHERE. So it is my thought that if science wants to pass out disinformation, then they need to shut up about people who are not well informed.

In another forum one of my threads ended up discussing pigs. Did you know that before we learned to synthesize insulin, we used pig insulin to treat diabetes? Pig skin has been used to replace skin on humans in serious burn cases -- although we have better treatments now. It is also interesting to note that, I believe in China, they are trying to develop the "GM Pig", which will be genetically engineered to provide an abundance of replacement parts for humans. It is also interesting to note that a tribe, in I think New Guinea, called humans "long pigs" because we sound like pigs when we are killed, and we taste like pigs. (chuckle) And then there is the Nebraska Man that was discussed in your link. They thought that they had found an ancient human tooth, but it ended up being a pig's tooth.

My thought is that if apes are our second cousin, pigs may be our first cousin. But it would be a lot easier to sell the idea of evolution by stating that we descended along with the majestic ape, than that we descended along with the majestic pig. (chuckle chuckle) I wonder how pig chromosomes match up.

I have no doubt that evolution exists, the evidence is there; but I have real problems with the theory. Natural selection is a given, but something can not be selected if it does not exist, and natural selection does not explain changes in a specie. The idea of random chance is bullshit. The odds are very much against random chance, and the evidence is not there. Where are all of the damned corpses that didn't work -- there should be billions and trillions of them. We should be able to find at least some fossil records of the oops ones, and we should see a lot of oops ones in the here and now.

The only evidence that I know of regarding a change in DNA from one life to another comes from Dr. Ian Stevenson in his work regarding reincarnation. He found birthmarks on newborn people that reflected the damage that caused the death in a prior life. His work has been peer reviewed and has withstood all investigations because he was meticulous in his methods and procedures. Now birthmarks do not make for a new specie, but it begs the question of what kind of process could cause these marks.

Apparently the trauma of death was in some way reflected in the new life. While considering this, I learned that hormones have the ability to turn off and on different aspects of DNA. Hormones also cause emotion, and emotion causes the production of hormones -- it is circular. So could the emotional trauma of death cause the hormones in the newly developing reincarnated body to change the DNA? It may be a far fetched idea, but at least it is a traceable path, and there is some evidence to support it.

So if a bunch of little lizards got eaten because they could not hide, and they changed their DNA upon their death and rebirth to a better color that would camouflage them, it might explain evolution. Then natural selection could take over. This would assume that all life reincarnates, that consciousness grows and develops along with life.

It would also make Jackles right.

Gee

jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Evolution is False

Post by jackles » Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:31 am

Yep evolution is the presenter of life forms but evolutions master is death. Death as evolution is simply nonlocality in action on local event life forms. We share the exact same consciousness as the lizzards have or any other forms of life sharing the event have.When we died we become nothing but the nothing exists . We go back to nonlocality our creator.Yep sorry but just had to get my two pennies worth in.ha .ps nonlocality is love.

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution is False

Post by WanderingLands » Sun Dec 21, 2014 3:09 pm

Gee wrote:WanderingLands;

I have been reading your very interesting thread off and on, and my computer is working at the moment, so I wanted to respond while I can. First I should state that I know little about evolution beyond the meaning of the word, and I have never studied it -- Darwinian or otherwise.

You have taken a lot of hits regarding your statements about the comparison of chromosomes in apes and humans. Everyone thinks you should study your science. Bullshit. If science wanted us to understand their theory of evolution, they would have made it clear. As you noted, Wiki seems to show a relationship, and if you look up evolution in Wiki, you will find a human, chimp, ape, and an orangutan all listed under "common descent". If you look at kids shows on TV, or in a child's textbook, or in a museum, you will find that very popular painting of a small crawly type of specie that gradually grows into a sort of ape, then a kind of caveman, and then a human. It is EVERYWHERE. So it is my thought that if science wants to pass out disinformation, then they need to shut up about people who are not well informed.

In another forum one of my threads ended up discussing pigs. Did you know that before we learned to synthesize insulin, we used pig insulin to treat diabetes? Pig skin has been used to replace skin on humans in serious burn cases -- although we have better treatments now. It is also interesting to note that, I believe in China, they are trying to develop the "GM Pig", which will be genetically engineered to provide an abundance of replacement parts for humans. It is also interesting to note that a tribe, in I think New Guinea, called humans "long pigs" because we sound like pigs when we are killed, and we taste like pigs. (chuckle) And then there is the Nebraska Man that was discussed in your link. They thought that they had found an ancient human tooth, but it ended up being a pig's tooth.

My thought is that if apes are our second cousin, pigs may be our first cousin. But it would be a lot easier to sell the idea of evolution by stating that we descended along with the majestic ape, than that we descended along with the majestic pig. (chuckle chuckle) I wonder how pig chromosomes match up.

I have no doubt that evolution exists, the evidence is there; but I have real problems with the theory. Natural selection is a given, but something can not be selected if it does not exist, and natural selection does not explain changes in a specie. The idea of random chance is bullshit. The odds are very much against random chance, and the evidence is not there. Where are all of the damned corpses that didn't work -- there should be billions and trillions of them. We should be able to find at least some fossil records of the oops ones, and we should see a lot of oops ones in the here and now.

The only evidence that I know of regarding a change in DNA from one life to another comes from Dr. Ian Stevenson in his work regarding reincarnation. He found birthmarks on newborn people that reflected the damage that caused the death in a prior life. His work has been peer reviewed and has withstood all investigations because he was meticulous in his methods and procedures. Now birthmarks do not make for a new specie, but it begs the question of what kind of process could cause these marks.

Apparently the trauma of death was in some way reflected in the new life. While considering this, I learned that hormones have the ability to turn off and on different aspects of DNA. Hormones also cause emotion, and emotion causes the production of hormones -- it is circular. So could the emotional trauma of death cause the hormones in the newly developing reincarnated body to change the DNA? It may be a far fetched idea, but at least it is a traceable path, and there is some evidence to support it.

So if a bunch of little lizards got eaten because they could not hide, and they changed their DNA upon their death and rebirth to a better color that would camouflage them, it might explain evolution. Then natural selection could take over. This would assume that all life reincarnates, that consciousness grows and develops along with life.

It would also make Jackles right.

Gee

Hello Gee - thank you for your insights, especially bringing reincarnation into the issue and even talking about how pigs were used for medicine and the question of genetic similarities with humans. I'm not knocking off that species are effected by environment, and that there is some evolution that exists (for example, in Biology class some years ago we were talking about the Amish having additional toes; I've skimped at a documentary of humans still crawling). However, I don't believe in the evolutionary narrative that's propagated in mainstream science; there's no good explanation of how there could be a macro-evolution of all things, as presented in mainstream science. Much of what has been taught by mainstream science concerning is false: those various fossils which were falsified, that human DNA has 98% junk in it which would justify having a correlation between apes and humans, and chance is also not explainable considering that it does not take into account of order and the fact that it's not descriptive and hasn't been clarified.

All that being said, I'll look more into this subject matter, and I will definitely consider what you said as it is definitely interesting to incorporate reincarnation into evolution.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11988
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:18 pm

WanderingLands wrote:Another part of the Evolution, the Out of Africa theory, has been also debunked by two Russian scientists. They found out that African haplogroups A and B were distant in other races, namely Caucasian races.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfor ... E1ay_nF_mt
This'll be those Russinas interested in promoting the idea that the Slav's are the true Ayrans would it?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11988
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Evolution is False

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:25 pm

Gee wrote:You have taken a lot of hits regarding your statements about the comparison of chromosomes in apes and humans. Everyone thinks you should study your science. Bullshit. If science wanted us to understand their theory of evolution, they would have made it clear.
They do but you'd have to read Biology books as I guess the scientists are a bit busy to be writing wiki entries.
As you noted, Wiki seems to show a relationship, and if you look up evolution in Wiki, you will find a human, chimp, ape, and an orangutan all listed under "common descent".
I think it means the relationship is that we're descend from common ancestors, what do you think it means?
If you look at kids shows on TV, or in a child's textbook, or in a museum, you will find that very popular painting of a small crawly type of specie that gradually grows into a sort of ape, then a kind of caveman, and then a human. It is EVERYWHERE. So it is my thought that if science wants to pass out disinformation, then they need to shut up about people who are not well informed.
Why do think it's biologists writing these things?
In another forum one of my threads ended up discussing pigs. Did you know that before we learned to synthesize insulin, we used pig insulin to treat diabetes? Pig skin has been used to replace skin on humans in serious burn cases -- although we have better treatments now. It is also interesting to note that, I believe in China, they are trying to develop the "GM Pig", which will be genetically engineered to provide an abundance of replacement parts for humans. It is also interesting to note that a tribe, in I think New Guinea, called humans "long pigs" because we sound like pigs when we are killed, and we taste like pigs. (chuckle) And then there is the Nebraska Man that was discussed in your link. They thought that they had found an ancient human tooth, but it ended up being a pig's tooth.
And your point?
My thought is that if apes are our second cousin, pigs may be our first cousin. But it would be a lot easier to sell the idea of evolution by stating that we descended along with the majestic ape, than that we descended along with the majestic pig. (chuckle chuckle) I wonder how pig chromosomes match up.
We're all pretty much cousins, we even have 15% in common genes with mustard grass.

With respect to pigs we share about 91% of our DNA with them, you might like this,
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/evolve/chimp.html

You also might like this quiz,
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/ ... ared-genes
I have no doubt that evolution exists, the evidence is there; but I have real problems with the theory. Natural selection is a given, but something can not be selected if it does not exist, and natural selection does not explain changes in a specie.
How so?
The idea of random chance is bullshit. The odds are very much against random chance, and the evidence is not there.
The idea is that it is not directed hence it is random. What is it you don't like about the idea?
Where are all of the damned corpses that didn't work -- there should be billions and trillions of them. We should be able to find at least some fossil records of the oops ones, and we should see a lot of oops ones in the here and now.
See the Burgess Shale. Fossilization is a fairly rare event as a very specific set of circumstances need to hold otherwise it decay all the way down.
The only evidence that I know of regarding a change in DNA from one life to another comes from Dr. Ian Stevenson in his work regarding reincarnation. He found birthmarks on newborn people that reflected the damage that caused the death in a prior life. His work has been peer reviewed and has withstood all investigations because he was meticulous in his methods and procedures. Now birthmarks do not make for a new specie, but it begs the question of what kind of process could cause these marks.

Apparently the trauma of death was in some way reflected in the new life. While considering this, I learned that hormones have the ability to turn off and on different aspects of DNA. Hormones also cause emotion, and emotion causes the production of hormones -- it is circular. So could the emotional trauma of death cause the hormones in the newly developing reincarnated body to change the DNA? It may be a far fetched idea, but at least it is a traceable path, and there is some evidence to support it.
Why would the DNA change? Change from what? As your DNA is not anyone else's so what is it changing from?
So if a bunch of little lizards got eaten because they could not hide, and they changed their DNA upon their death and rebirth to a better color that would camouflage them, it might explain evolution. ...
Why does the theory of evolution need such a thing? As with NS those lizards who didn't get eaten, i.e. those with slightly better camouflage, would reproduce and survive and with successive generations the ones with minutely better camouflage would survive and hence over time better camouflaged lizards would appear, it's how we get prettier pigeons and carp.
Then natural selection could take over. ...
So no need for the sky-hook of reincarnation.
This would assume that all life reincarnates, that consciousness grows and develops along with life.
How did consciousness come into this?
It would also make Jackles right.

Gee
Many a strange thing does happen.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest