Evolution is False

[Gee]

WanderingLands;

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.

You are very welcome. I enjoy a lot of your threads. You are a bit of a rebel, but at least you think, which I find interesting.

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 [evolution] is false:

The problem with science is that it has lost it's respect for philosophy. Science deals with knowns, facts, and it does a good job with what it understands. But it has no damned idea of how to deal with unknowns, as that is the venue of philosophy. Philosophy determines what we can know, and how we know it, which means that it determines truth, truth being a form of wisdom.

So science sees the evidence of evolution and decides that "random chance" causes this evolution, because they can not imagine anything else that could cause it. This is where they screw up; they use imagination, speculation, assumption, and even guesses to form their premises. So you can trust what science tells you, only, if you trace back their ideas to the original premise and check it for accuracy.

The Theory of Evolution is a good example of this nonsense as is their idea that consciousness emits from the human brain. They will admit that other species may be conscious, but will not confirm it. Why? Because the Christian God made humans in his image and gave them a soul, but did not extend this to other life. So whether they believe it or not, science has assumed the Bible's interpretation of evolution and consciousness, while science vehemently states that religion is wrong. It is almost comical.

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.

If you think about it, and consider what religions that believe in reincarnation state, then you will see that reincarnation is in fact an evolution. It is an evolution of the soul, or consciousness. Since I am not religious and have trouble accepting the arrogant and self-serving idea that consciousness is the sole province of humans, I have simply extended this idea to life.

There was a time when I would not have given reincarnation a second thought, as religions tend to tweak their facts in order to conform them with the prevailing dogma, but Dr. Stevenson changed all that. He studied reincarnation using scientific methods and came up with evidence. He proved, at least to my mind, that reincarnation does happen. This does not mean that it always happens, or that it is the only way for life to form or continue, but his findings also do not dispute those ideas.

His studies indicate that after the age of seven, people have no memory of a past life, so if it was not discussed prior to the age of seven, we would have no knowledge of it. I used to do a lot of babysitting in my youth, and I remember a few children, who insisted that their name was different than it was, or that they were different people than they are. But these children were very young, and that passed. It was assumed that they were just imagining, but were they? We really do not listen to children.

If a Western mother was giving her son a bath and noted a birthmark on him, and said, "Where did you get that mark?" The child might respond, "That is where I got shot." The Western mother would assume that it was imagination and assure the child that no one was going to shoot him. If the same scenario happened to an Eastern family, the mother might ask, "When did you get shot?", and the child might respond, "When my name was George." Further questioning might reveal a full name, a town, and occupation. Then Dr. Stevenson would be called and his team would investigate, and may find that a man by that name and with that occupation lived in that town about a year before the child's birth, and he was shot dead. Then the medical records of the dead man may show a bullet hole in the body that is located in the same place as the child's birthmark. In the really interesting cases, there is sometimes an exit wound that matches up with another birthmark on the child's back. Very few cases have a physical manifestation, but that it occurs at all is relevant -- science has no idea of how or why most birthmarks form.

If you decide to investigate Dr. Stevenson, don't bother with Wiki. The last time I looked him up, the article had been changed and showed his admittedly weaker cases, but did not show his stronger cases. So it has been rewritten with clear bias. Go online to the University of Virginia in the Psychiatry section. There is a full write up there and an offer for different articles and books. There are also some interesting videos on YouTube regarding Dr. Stevenson's work.

Gee

[Greylorn Ell]

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

Gee,

Let's see. Last response from you on another thread in which I tried to assist you with computer glitches, was to be called a "shit" for introducing concepts that I happen to believe are valid. Well, thank you, Gracious Bitch.

In this post you express ideas that are right out of the Beon Theory that seems to piss you off. I notice that these ideas appear after you bought a copy of Digital Universe -- Analog Soul, the book that explains Beon Theory. (e.g. 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.) Thank you for the acknowledgement, GB.

I'd be predisposed to the notion that you actually found these insights on your own, had you not already admitted to complete ignorance of the principles involved in Darwinism, the consequence of not having bothered to peruse C. Darwin's two significant books on the subject.

I've degraded my once-high opinion of you to an ignorant, inept, ego-monger-- someone who will take the ideas of others as if she'd invented them, boost them to overlarge proportions, and attribute them to herself. Next life, another Hillary Clinton. IMO your behavior is the mark of a fundamentally evil person, or someone working that track. I'm sorry for you. I suspect that your husband died mainly to be rid of the snarky competition, exhausted from his role as a sacrificial lamb to your overweening sense of self-importance. That sorry fucker could not have done a damned thing right, with you around. If he did, you'd have taken credit for it.

Greylorn

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

Gee,

Let's see. Last response from you on another thread in which I tried to assist you with computer glitches, was to be called a "shit" for introducing concepts that I happen to believe are valid. Well, thank you, Gracious Bitch.

In this post you express ideas that are right out of the Beon Theory that seems to piss you off. I notice that these ideas appear after you bought a copy of Digital Universe -- Analog Soul, the book that explains Beon Theory. (e.g. 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.) Thank you for the acknowledgement, GB.

I'd be predisposed to the notion that you actually found these insights on your own, had you not already admitted to complete ignorance of the principles involved in Darwinism, the consequence of not having bothered to peruse C. Darwin's two significant books on the subject.

I've degraded my once-high opinion of you to an ignorant, inept, ego-monger-- someone who will take the ideas of others as if she'd invented them, boost them to overlarge proportions, and attribute them to herself. Next life, another Hillary Clinton. IMO your behavior is the mark of a fundamentally evil person, or someone working that track. I'm sorry for you. I suspect that your husband died mainly to be rid of the snarky competition, exhausted from his role as a sacrificial lamb to your overweening sense of self-importance. That sorry fucker could not have done a damned thing right, with you around. If he did, you'd have taken credit for it.

Greylorn

I believe you may have possibly assumed far to much to warrant such venom. But then that seems to be your modus operandi. Try giving people the benefit of doubt first, before attempting to decapitate them. I think you'd get far more, concerning your contributions to the forum, in return, for doing so. Just trying to be the unbiased voice of reason, amongst an emotional onslaught.

Happy Holidays Greylorn!

And to all others as well!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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

Mutations happen all the time. Sometimes they are beneficial and get passed on to succeeding generations. Evolution is not hard to understand at all if people want to be bothered.

[Greylorn Ell]

Gee wrote:
Everyone thinks you should study your science. Bullshit. If science wanted us to understand their theory of evolution, they would have made it clear.

So, "science" obfuscated the issue of evolution, beginning with C. Darwin and perpetuating.

What does that tell you?

Of more interest, where does that take you?

Greylorn

[SpheresOfBalance]

They are not mutations, "mutations" indicate that something was once 'normal,' or the way it 'should' be. In fact the earths biosphere, was, is, and always will be, ever changing. It's to be expected, as it's the nature of this single organism called the symbiotic biosphere. And the "changes," NOT mutations, are NOT random, instead they are environmentally driven, as that's the way the symbiotic biosphere, rolls!

Sorry about the rest of you!

Happy Holidays!

[Gee]

Greylorn;

Please consider my following responses.

Gee,

Let's see. Last response from you on another thread in which I tried to assist you with computer glitches, was to be called a "shit" for introducing concepts that I happen to believe are valid. Well, thank you, Gracious Bitch.

Tweaked you, did I? Good.

In this post you express ideas that are right out of the Beon Theory that seems to piss you off. I notice that these ideas appear after you bought a copy of Digital Universe -- Analog Soul, the book that explains Beon Theory. (e.g. 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.) Thank you for the acknowledgement, GB.

You may also notice that all of the underlined statements can be derived from just reading this thread. You, yourself, had to have explained, that natural selection does not cause something to be available to select, about four times. One of those examples involved beer on a shelf. And if you look at the last post from Arising to me, you will see that he still does not get it.

Regarding Beon Theory, I stopped reading the book after I realized that you were not going to give valid references -- about the third chapter. I hate learning something that is wrong because it is so difficult to unlearn it, and had no way to judge what was valid and what was guessing. Now that I have my vision back, I may get back into the book, because I can now research whatever I find. I can see.

I'd be predisposed to the notion that you actually found these insights on your own, had you not already admitted to complete ignorance of the principles involved in Darwinism, the consequence of not having bothered to peruse C. Darwin's two significant books on the subject.

What I stated is that I have never studied evolution. Since I have been in a lot of different forums, both science and philosophy, I would have to be dumb as a doorknob to be completely ignorant of the principles involved. It should not surprise you that I came to the same conclusions that any intelligent person would reach.

I would not prefer to address this in a public forum, but since you insist, consider the following: When I first met you in the Pure Consciousness? thread, your praise and flattery was outrageous. One might think that I could walk on water. I assumed that you wanted something from me. But when we disagreed a few months ago, you called me a liar, stated that I was shopping for references on the internet when I referenced the SEP (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy put out by Stanford University) and implied that we had a deeper relationship than we do, when you talked about women who get angry when they get out of bed and find their partner has bad breath. Then you called me a good woman and a valuable poster in the last thread, and now I am a gracious bitch, fundamentally evil, and stealing ideas from your book.

Clearly, one of us has emotional problems.

I would like to recommend that after you type a post, leave it set until the next day when your mood has mellowed, then review and post it. I found that this method worked for me when I used to get angry.

Gee

[Gee]

Arising;

Please consider my following responses.

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.

This is the kind of arrogance that I would expect to find in a science forum. The implication is that the poster does not read or does not read the "right" things. It is an attempt to take the high ground and not worthy of honest discourse in a philosophy forum. College level biology books, and maybe high school level biology books, give some understanding, but we start out being taught nonsense. It is just like the "Columbus discovered America" that we learn first, then later they tell us that is not true.

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?

I think that it implies that we are ONLY closely related to chimps, apes, and orangutans.

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?

Who said it was?

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?

The point is simple, and you should have caught it. I was giving an explanation and visual help reference to dispel this nonsense about a STRAIGHT path from nonlife to humans through apes. It is not such a simple straight path. We are in some ways related to all life.

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

Thank you. The links were informative and fun.

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?

How so what? Please elaborate on the question.

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?

Two things. First, how do you know that it is not directed? Second, can you show me something that is random that promotes its own continuance and also progresses?

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.

Fine, but what about the now. And how do these random mutations acquire mates? And how do these random mutations acquire the instincts necessary to survive in their new life forms?

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?

I am talking about the skin discoloration. It is not like damage or a wound, it actually grows a different color and maintains that color through life. Wouldn't that require a DNA type instruction?

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.

You still don't get it. NS chooses from among the selection, it does not cause the selection to be there. I am talking about the cause of the selection.

This would assume that all life reincarnates, that consciousness grows and develops along with life.

How did consciousness come into this?

It was easy. We are talking about life, and life is conscious.

It would also make Jackles right.

Gee

Many a strange thing does happen.

Gee

[Greylorn Ell]

Mutations happen all the time. Sometimes they are beneficial and get passed on to succeeding generations. Evolution is not hard to understand at all if people want to be bothered.

No, mutations do not occur "all the time," which is a meaningless measurement. Single-point mutations within germ cells occur at the rate of about one in every million replications of a DNA strand. Such mutations are rarely useful, and according to Darwinian theory will not be retained by an organism unless they give it a survival edge. Double-point mutations are more likely to be useful, but of course will only occur once in a trillion replications.

Calculating the rate of potentially effective mutations on an organism because different organisms have different replication rates.

However, the time-independent replication calculations are more interesting, because they are easily calculated with no more data needed than that which describes a human gene, all of it available and well researched.

The probability that one single smallish 900 base-pair human gene might appear as the consequence of the random chance mutations of that gene is 1.4 x 10exp-542. Honest scientists decided long ago that one shot in 10 exp-40 was the equivalent of impossible. Translated: the likelihood that a single human gene might have occurred as the result of random chance is roughly 500 orders of magnitude beyond impossibility.

Most people defending Darwinism are not well educated on the subject. Over years of work on many threads, I've encountered only one other person who claimed to have actually read Darwin's books. I can count those who've read either of Michael Behe's books on the fingers of one hand while picking my nose.

If you care to be personally bothered with a bit of additional study, you might begin with this little Wikipedia piece about point mutations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation

When satisfied with that you might come up with the solution to an evolutionary curiosity, the C-value Enigma, unresolved by Darwinian theory and equally vexing to religionists. Good luck with that.

Greylorn

[WanderingLands]

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?

I suggest that you actually read it and take it into consideration, without any bias (if even political or racial bias).

[Arising_uk]

I suggest that you actually read it and take it into consideration, without any bias (if even political or racial bias).

I did and it made little sense to me as I haven't read the necessary background material. What I did read was that he is a very clever man with a clear mission to make what he considers as his race the same race equated with white supremacy.

[WanderingLands]

I suggest that you actually read it and take it into consideration, without any bias (if even political or racial bias).

I did and it made little sense to me as I haven't read the necessary background material. What I did read was that he is a very clever man with a clear mission to make what he considers as his race the same race equated with white supremacy.

I looked into the guy more - I see that you are right about his background. I also looked at some criticism of his work, which was found in the comments section of the study. So this must be looked at more critically then. Thanks for that.

[Lev Muishkin]

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.

Darwin predicted genes.

You are simply showing yourself to be a first class moron.
Please google Darwin Online, and take a look at the life's work of a genius.
For an encore you might want to look at 160 years of diligent study.

Also please take note that the image says "I think", this is something you might want to consider doing.

[Arising_uk]

This is the kind of arrogance that I would expect to find in a science forum. The implication is that the poster does not read or does not read the "right" things. It is an attempt to take the high ground and not worthy of honest discourse in a philosophy forum. College level biology books, and maybe high school level biology books, give some understanding, but we start out being taught nonsense. It is just like the "Columbus discovered America" that we learn first, then later they tell us that is not true.

No, it's to point out that wiki whilst a usful tool is not the be all and end all of knowledge about a subject. If these posters of yours wish to get a more rounded view of a subject it behoves them to read the books that are actually about the subject is my thought.

I think that it implies that we are ONLY closely related to chimps, apes, and orangutans.

Which reinforces my point about wiki then.

On a general point, how would you suggest we start to teach things then, jump straight in with the full picture? How would a child grasp such concepts?

With respect to christopher, I agree he didn't find the Americas but in a sense he did found it as it was his report that stirred the Empires to colonise.

Who said it was?

Then why did you say it was them spreading the disinformation?

The point is simple, and you should have caught it. I was giving an explanation and visual help reference to dispel this nonsense about a STRAIGHT path from nonlife to humans through apes. It is not such a simple straight path. We are in some ways related to all life.

Not some ways but the DNA way. No biologists say there is a straight path nor even a path as we are of the Apes.

Thank you. The links were informative and fun.

You're welcome.

How so what? Please elaborate on the question.

How does NS not explain species change?

Two things. First, how do you know that it is not directed?

I don't, I believe it the best explanation I've heard so far. I've also heard that there might be a way that phenotype can affect genotype, Epigenetics, but so far this appears limited to a very very small set of genes and on the whole it resets with each creation, so I think it maybe not so influential as many appear to wish.

Second, can you show me something that is random that promotes its own continuance and also progresses?

There is no progress in NS but my DNA is a good example.

Fine, but what about the now. And how do these random mutations acquire mates? And how do these random mutations acquire the instincts necessary to survive in their new life forms?

You have a strange view of things, a bit 50's sci-fi like, you appear to be thinking of a whole new species just popping into existence but Darwinism says it doesn't appear to work that way(although I'm not sure if the Punctuated Evolutionary model is still about as it does posit times of massive and rapid change), its small changes that give a reproductive advantage over a long time that give rise to species, so these 'mutants' do not become mules and need to be able to mate otherwise the mutation would be a disadvantage not an advantage. Also mutations don't have instincts and don't inhabit life-forms like parasites.

I am talking about the skin discoloration. It is not like damage or a wound, it actually grows a different color and maintains that color through life. Wouldn't that require a DNA type instruction?

Not necessarily as the process of building a body is extremely complicated, I recommend Edleman's Bright Air Brilliant Fire if you're interested and pretty much any of his books are eye-openers, and it doesn't has to be a coded instruction but a mistranslation of an instruction or just an external event interfering in the process.

You still don't get it. NS chooses from among the selection, it does not cause the selection to be there. I am talking about the cause of the selection.

Well NS doesn't actually 'choose' anything, it sieves unconsciously. I'm unsure what you are talking about here? Are you talking about Abogenesis?

It was easy. We are talking about life, and life is conscious.

We've had this conversation before, if you mean all life is aware of an external world in some sense then sure but if you mean aware it is aware then I think not.

[Greylorn Ell]

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

Gee,

Let's see. Last response from you on another thread in which I tried to assist you with computer glitches, was to be called a "shit" for introducing concepts that I happen to believe are valid. Well, thank you, Gracious Bitch.

In this post you express ideas that are right out of the Beon Theory that seems to piss you off. I notice that these ideas appear after you bought a copy of Digital Universe -- Analog Soul, the book that explains Beon Theory. (e.g. 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.) Thank you for the acknowledgement, GB.

I'd be predisposed to the notion that you actually found these insights on your own, had you not already admitted to complete ignorance of the principles involved in Darwinism, the consequence of not having bothered to peruse C. Darwin's two significant books on the subject.

I've degraded my once-high opinion of you to an ignorant, inept, ego-monger-- someone who will take the ideas of others as if she'd invented them, boost them to overlarge proportions, and attribute them to herself. Next life, another Hillary Clinton. IMO your behavior is the mark of a fundamentally evil person, or someone working that track. I'm sorry for you. I suspect that your husband died mainly to be rid of the snarky competition, exhausted from his role as a sacrificial lamb to your overweening sense of self-importance. That sorry fucker could not have done a damned thing right, with you around. If he did, you'd have taken credit for it.

Greylorn

I believe you may have possibly assumed far to much to warrant such venom. But then that seems to be your modus operandi. Try giving people the benefit of doubt first, before attempting to decapitate them. I think you'd get far more, concerning your contributions to the forum, in return, for doing so. Just trying to be the unbiased voice of reason, amongst an emotional onslaught.

Happy Holidays Greylorn!

And to all others as well!

I appreciate your unbiasedness. Given my comments, I'm impressed, and will take your thoughts at face value rather than trying to read betwixt the words.

Somewhere amid whatever processes produce consciousness, I've gotten the notion that there is some value in paying attention to what actually happens in life, compared to my programmed beliefs about what should happen.

The NFL (National Football League) offers an example of bullshit vs. reality. (I'm a Green Bay Packer fan, who lived there, saw the transformations to a city, consequence of one hard-assed man.) This year the NFL came down hard, early in season, on players who showed the slightest bit of intransigence to some new rules. But by late season, they've adjusted their enforcement of rules, and are screwing the teams who made the mistake of abiding by these assholes' early-season "rules." Typical of bureaucratic pricks. If you want to win, your hand must enter their pockets with a fistful of large bills, and leave empty.

Philosophy should, ideally, be a hard-nosed conversation without rules. But modern philosophers are NOT related to Socrates, willing to put his life on the line for his ideas. Our "philosophers" are akin to the asshole NFL rule-makers. Their CYA (Cover Your Ass) principles have become their "philosophy." By constructing and abiding by their bullshit rules of discourse, they will secure their comfortable positions in universities, or their assumed position as "philosophers." No risk. No pain. No gain, excepting short-term personal interests.

I've been giving people the "benefit of the doubt" since I was taught that bullshit back in Catholic school. Consequences: loss of money to thieves, loss of credibility to liars. One who managed both was my oldest offspring. The truth is that people will tell you whatever they think you will believe in order to make a buck, or to prove themselves "right."

Greylorn