Atheism. Is there more to it than just mocking people?

[riskllama]

nope - "money wrench" is by far my favourite metaphor, tzor... . #nailedit

[2dimes]

Picture of money wrench please.

[warmonger1981]

So this is what happens when I stop reading the forums ... a discussion develops?

A lot of ignorance on both sides. I find that most people who believe in evolution, don't understand it.

My problem is that it's impossible. And you need a lot of study to come to that conclusion.

I'm going to throw a money wrench (or a wooden shoe depending on your favorite metaphor) into the discussion. I would insist that most people (on both sides) puts a lot of moral implications into their arguments which should simply not be in the discussion. There are a lot of reasons for this but the biggest assumption is that "changes" makes something better and that evolution means creatures today are "better" than there were in the past. They are not; just somewhat different. Change is certainly possible. Not better, not worse, just different. External forces generally drives the "evolution" of species or rather sub-species. Remember that the final question is not whether anything is "better" but whether it is sufficient to work at all. It's not about coming in first place; it's about managing to finish the race.

Would this be considered epigenetics?

[DoomYoshi]

Epigenetics refers to heritable information that are not related to the sequence of DNA. Basically, instead of the letters of the gene changing, the packaging of the gene changes; so the end result is that gene expression still changes. That isn't what tzor's post was about.

[warmonger1981]

Epigenetics refers to heritable information that are not related to the sequence of DNA. Basically, instead of the letters of the gene changing, the packaging of the gene changes; so the end result is that gene expression still changes. That isn't what tzor's post was about.

Thank you for the clarification. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[jonesthecurl]

Picture of money wrench please.

Don't money this up, now.

[warmonger1981]

Picture of money wrench please.

Don't money this up, now.

You're a clever racist.

[Symmetry]

So this is what happens when I stop reading the forums ... a discussion develops?

A lot of ignorance on both sides. I find that most people who believe in evolution, don't understand it.

My problem is that it's impossible. And you need a lot of study to come to that conclusion.

I'm going to throw a money wrench (or a wooden shoe depending on your favorite metaphor) into the discussion. I would insist that most people (on both sides) puts a lot of moral implications into their arguments which should simply not be in the discussion. There are a lot of reasons for this but the biggest assumption is that "changes" makes something better and that evolution means creatures today are "better" than there were in the past. They are not; just somewhat different. Change is certainly possible. Not better, not worse, just different. External forces generally drives the "evolution" of species or rather sub-species. Remember that the final question is not whether anything is "better" but whether it is sufficient to work at all. It's not about coming in first place; it's about managing to finish the race.

It's not even necessarily about finishing the race. It's not really an objective thing at all. It's mostly about what works and fits the environment.

Take something like the Red Queen hypothesis in evolution: two competing species, say predator and prey, compete to exist. The predator evolves to hunt faster, the prey does the same to escape. The predator develops better hunting skills, the prey breeds faster. The predator develops sharper claws, the prey a thicker hide.

They remain in a state of equilibrium until the environment changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis

[warmonger1981]

Does anybody know an evolutionist standpoint on the chicken or the egg?

[Symmetry]

Does anybody know an evolutionist standpoint on the chicken or the egg?

Egg. The proto-chicken that laid the chicken egg, was, if we are to draw a line, only part of what we can now call a chicken. The first chicken was born from a chicken egg, created by two proto-chickens.

That's just, like my opinion though.

[jonesthecurl]

Does anybody know an evolutionist standpoint on the chicken or the egg?

Did you go read Gould like I suggested?

[warmonger1981]

Does anybody know an evolutionist standpoint on the chicken or the egg?

Did you go read Gould like I suggested?

no. but you can explain it faster than I can read a book. just give me the guts of it.

[tzor]

It's not even necessarily about finishing the race.

"Finishing the race" was basically an expression for creating the next generation of the organism. From an evolutionary standpoint that is the only criteria.

[Bigbullets]

genes can change in other ways than mutation.
Take a search for "horizontal gene transfer".

The only way 'new' information arises is through mutations. You can't have evolution without mutations.

Look it up. Cows have snake genes, humans have genes from othere species.
Again, take the time to look it up. Horizontal gene transfer.

And how did human's get 'snake genes'? I want specifics. Since snakes aren't in the evolutionary line of humans.

Human's and squids have the same eye. This doesn't help your cause. Because you have to believe that the same organ evolved independently in two different creature by random chance. Not only improbable, but impossible.

[jonesthecurl]

genes can change in other ways than mutation.
Take a search for "horizontal gene transfer".

The only way 'new' information arises is through mutations. You can't have evolution without mutations.

Look it up. Cows have snake genes, humans have genes from othere species.
Again, take the time to look it up. Horizontal gene transfer.

And how did human's get 'snake genes'? I want specifics. Since snakes aren't in the evolutionary line of humans.

Human's and squids have the same eye. This doesn't help your cause. Because you have to believe that the same organ evolved independently in two different creature by random chance. Not only improbable, but impossible.

Cows have snake genes. I don't think humans do -though they do have genes from other species. Look it up - horizontal gene transfer. Here' I'll make it easy for you, though it would take less than a minute to search for thishttps://www.britannica.com/science/hori ... e-transfer
There are several cases of eyes evolving into similar forms. That's because if an eye is gonna work, there are a limited number of possibilities.

[mookiemcgee]

genes can change in other ways than mutation.
Take a search for "horizontal gene transfer".

The only way 'new' information arises is through mutations. You can't have evolution without mutations.

Look it up. Cows have snake genes, humans have genes from othere species.
Again, take the time to look it up. Horizontal gene transfer.

And how did human's get 'snake genes'? I want specifics. Since snakes aren't in the evolutionary line of humans.

Human's and squids have the same eye. This doesn't help your cause. Because you have to believe that the same organ evolved independently in two different creature by random chance. Not only improbable, but impossible.

Cows have snake genes. I don't think humans do -though they do have genes from other species. Look it up - horizontal gene transfer. Here' I'll make it easy for you, though it would take less than a minute to search for thishttps://www.britannica.com/science/hori ... e-transfer
There are several cases of eyes evolving into similar forms. That's because if an eye is gonna work, there are a limited number of possibilities.

But maybe god just got frustrated and was in a rush to meet the 7 day timeline so he start reusing parts!

[Bigbullets]

Cows have snake genes. I don't think humans do -though they do have genes from other species. Look it up - horizontal gene transfer. Here' I'll make it easy for you, though it would take less than a minute to search for thishttps://www.britannica.com/science/hori ... e-transfer
There are several cases of eyes evolving into similar forms. That's because if an eye is gonna work, there are a limited number of possibilities.

Um, no. The reason we have eyes at all according to evolution is chance. We have eyes purely by accident. And we have two, by accident. Instead of three or one. And they are both the same kind of eye. Both eyes evolved to be the same.

So improbable, that's it's absurd to think that such a thing happens by pure chance.

Horizontal gene transfer doesn't happen in nature. It's never been observed to happen in nature. It's unverifiable. Therefore, not scientific.

[warmonger1981]

can anyone explaine how the moon got here to help the evolutionary process?

[tzor]

can anyone explaine how the moon got here to help the evolutionary process?

Have you tried asking Wikipedia?

[warmonger1981]

can anyone explaine how the moon got here to help the evolutionary process?

Have you tried asking Wikipedia?

doesn't pass the mustard test. too many options to choose from. so which one is correct?

[Neoteny]

can anyone explaine how the moon got here to help the evolutionary process?

Oh god yes give me that huge rock.

[tzor]

doesn't pass the mustard test. too many options to choose from. so which one is correct?

It's like the question "Who killed MR. Boddy?" Do we really know which one is correct before we have eliminated all the other possibilities?

Spoiler

You don't know who killed Mr. Boddy? Get a CLUE. Oh well it's actuallty Mr. Black in the UK

[warmonger1981]

doesn't pass the mustard test. too many options to choose from. so which one is correct?

It's like the question "Who killed MR. Boddy?" Do we really know which one is correct before we have eliminated all the other possibilities?

Spoiler

You don't know who killed Mr. Boddy? Get a CLUE. Oh well it's actuallty Mr. Black in the UK

sounds like evolution. too many options to pick from without any real evidence. does Wikipedia have a evolution page that can prove evolution without any gaps or lack of evidence? because all moon theories have major gaps. still wondering about the coincidence in moon-sun ratios in the videos I posted.im not saying I'm right just open to learning.

[Neoteny]

sounds like evolution. too many options to pick from without any real evidence. does Wikipedia have a evolution page that can prove evolution without any gaps or lack of evidence? because all moon theories have major gaps. still wondering about the coincidence in moon-sun ratios in the videos I posted.im not saying I'm right just open to learning.

He's, uh, fudging the numbers some. Solar distance is defined as about 92955807 miles and lunar distance is 238856 miles instead of 93312000 and 233280. I'll round like he did to 92956000 and 238860. When you divide those by the relatively accurate diameters (he's rounding inconsistently here too, but whatever, these are close enough), you get a solar ratio of 107.5 (close enough to 108 I guess), and a lunar ratio of 110.5 which is kinda far from 108. Like, if you were doing statistics these might fall within some error bars, but we aren't, and if we're talking about divine evidence here, you'd think god could nail the 108 within maybe an integer or so. If you're basing your worldview on numerology, maybe you don't want to be basing it on measurements that vary by tens of thousands or even millions of miles depending on what time of year you measure it. Either way, it's hard to trust a guy who can't even use wikipedia right to get the actual averages.

You don't usually need science to "mock" numerologists. You kinda just have to check their math.

[tzor]

Does Wikipedia have a evolution page that can prove evolution without any gaps or lack of evidence?

There will always be gaps because history is generally obtained by observing remaining fragments. The further back you go the larger the gaps you will find. In any event, it doesn't really matter because you are confusing history with science. How the animals on the earth specifically evolved isn't vital to the scientific theory behind it.

And with that I'm going to swap hats because there is this moronic notion of an absolute dichotomy here; evolutionism or literal creationism. By doing this you are basically evoking a "god of the gaps" mentality which is basically anathema to the whole theme of "The Law" which forms the basis for the arguments of literal creationism. This is akin to the Douglas Adams joke that if you can prove God to exist, he ceases to exist because faith requires him to be impossible to prove.

One of my problems is that I started with a BS in physics, so the "uncertainty principle" is a fundamental part of my mindset. While some insist on a binary mode of logic (true / false) there is some merit to the trinary logic system (true, false and unknown). So the facts that there are unknown areas (gaps) in history is no reason to scrap history entirely.