Biology Forum › Evolution › 3 best disproofs of evolution
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
November 3, 2009 at 12:49 pm #12187
gamilaParticipant3 best disproofs of evolution
in the 1800s westerners believed they where more evolved that african natives
western man ie european believed they were higher up the evolutionary ladder than primitive culture-defined by them as primitivethis was no more than a european bias and self serving belief
now we still have this biased term still hanging around in biologyevolution is a biased term it could easily be argued that we dont have evolution but instead devolution
evolution is a human concept it is a bit arrogant to think that nature fits our human conceptstake the human concepts in which evolution is couched ie species and phylum
again it is a bit arrogant to think that nature fits our conceptsan octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts
but nevertheless3 best disproofs of evolution
you all talk about evolution in terms of species and phylumbut no ones knows what a species or phylum is
so all this talk about evolution of species/phylum is meaningless nonsense1)scientists cannot tell us what a species is
quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"
2)scientists cannot tell us what a r phylum is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"
with out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about evolution/devolution then he is talking meaningless nonsense as he cant locate exaclty just what has evolded/devoled
The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox
3)who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate withan individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species
either
1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate togetherif this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same timethe other alternative is that some intelligence was at work
-
November 3, 2009 at 12:56 pm #94404JackBeanParticipant
Wasn’t this all everything here already? It’s kind of spam, isn’t it? 😈
But anyway, about the last part. The evolution is consequent process. You don’t just get now new species B, which never before occured.
Instead, you have species A, which slowly changes, e.g. in one isolated area. In this area, some mutations (read quality/feature) is prefered due to enviroment. This is how subspecies arise and when these subspecies are too different, they just become two independent species.Anyway, all the classifications and definitions and everything are just human-made, but that doesn’t mean, that it kind of describes the nature and unless you don’t have better description, be silent. If you have one, why don’t we and all people around the world know it? 😆 🙄
-
November 3, 2009 at 1:07 pm #94405gamilaParticipant
you say
quote :But anyway, about the last part. The evolution is consequent process.but
evolution is a biased term it could easily be argued that we dont have evolution but instead devolution
evolution is a human concept it is a bit arrogant to think that nature fits our human conceptsquote :take the human concepts in which evolution is couched ie species and phylum
again it is a bit arrogant to think that nature fits our conceptsan octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts
-
November 3, 2009 at 1:13 pm #94406JackBeanParticipant
You got it a little messed 🙄
Anyway, we don’t want nature to fit our concept, but we are trying to fit our concept to the nature, but as you are obviously not scientist, you will never understand…
-
November 3, 2009 at 1:16 pm #94407gamilaParticipant
you say
quote :Anyway, we don’t want nature to fit our concept, but we are trying to fit our concept to the nature, but as you are obviously not scientist, you will never understand..but
the biologist like the westerner of later centuries is both arrogant and ethonocentric-he sees the world through his man man arbitary and conventional language gamesquote :in the 1800s westerners believed they where more evolved that african natives
western man ie european believed they were higher up the evolutionary ladder than primitive culture-defined by them as primitivethis was no more than a european bias and self serving belief
now we still have this biased term still hanging around in biologyquote :an octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts -
November 3, 2009 at 1:20 pm #94408biohazardParticipant
don’t feed the troll.
-
November 3, 2009 at 1:33 pm #94410JackBeanParticipant
😆
-
November 3, 2009 at 1:55 pm #94412gamilaParticipant
you say
quote :don’t feed the troll.ad hominums always indicate an intellectually challanged person a person that cant deal with the issue
the biologist like the westerner of later centuries is both arrogant and ethonocentric-he sees the world through his man man arbitary and conventional language games
quote :in the 1800s westerners believed they where more evolved that african natives
western man ie european believed they were higher up the evolutionary ladder than primitive culture-defined by them as primitivethis was no more than a european bias and self serving belief
now we still have this biased term still hanging around in biologyquote :an octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts -
November 3, 2009 at 2:05 pm #94413DougalbodParticipantquote gamila:you sayquote :an octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts
The octopus, assuming it was a scientific octopus, would have the same understanding of population growth as we do, after all we can observe and measure populations. He/she/it would have the same understanding of genetics, again it’s an observable measurable process. He/she/it would be able to measure/observe the effect of limited resources on populations and eventually a talented octupus would put all this together to come up with a theory of evolution through natural selection… it’s just observation, measurement and logic. Of course he would write it in octopus language which I guess might sound different to human language.
Dougal
-
November 3, 2009 at 2:16 pm #94414gamilaParticipant
you say
quote :The octopus, assuming it was a scientific octopus, would have the same understanding of population growth as we do,nothing but an ethnocentric comment
that is like a 1800s european saying that if a primitive african was cultured he would eat with a napkin
take the term scientificthere is much debete about there not being a scientific method thus there being nothing scientific
you cant even see how your cultures language games constructs your view of the world
and that of the octopuses viewyou seem to think your indo-european langauge games is the epistemic tool to understand the universe- such arrogance
-
November 3, 2009 at 2:21 pm #94415JackBeanParticipant
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think, that repeating one post (or just some parts) all the time again and again is actually spam, isn’t it? Maybe stuff for moderators?
-
November 3, 2009 at 2:24 pm #94416gamilaParticipant
you say
quote :Maybe I’m wrong, but I think, that repeating one post (or just some parts) all the time again and again is actually spam, isn’t it? Maybe stuff for moderators?are you that threatened by these ideas that you like medieval theologians you want the heetic silenced
or
are you really showing you are intellectually challanged by this post -
November 3, 2009 at 2:33 pm #94417JackBeanParticipant
I’m saying, that you repeat some boring stuff all again and again and again.
If not evolution, what is than true in accordance to you? Everyone can criticise, but bring alternative, that’s the chalenge
-
November 3, 2009 at 3:00 pm #94418gamilaParticipant
you say
quote :If not evolution, what is than true in accordance to you? Everyone can criticise, but bring alternative, that’s the chalengeits simple see without seeing as the zenists say
bilogy is 100 years behindthe physicist bohr said the problem was words
quote :Bohr commenting on the dual, or paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics laid the blame on the paradoxes on words, or language. As he said “Dual pictures, dual language: linguistic analysis is the key to the understand quantum mechanics Bohr told his protegee Heisenberg, shattering his hard-won vision of the microworld. The very words physicists use to describe reality constrain their knowledge of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to human understanding -
November 3, 2009 at 3:10 pm #94419JackBeanParticipant
OK, so you have nothing. Good to know
-
November 3, 2009 at 3:16 pm #94421gamilaParticipant
you say
quote :OK, so you have nothing. Good to knowyou obviously cant see what is in front of you
"see without seeing"
that phrase may take you a lifetime to understandbohr saw it
but you cant -
November 3, 2009 at 3:26 pm #94426DougalbodParticipantquote gamila:you sayquote :The octopus, assuming it was a scientific octopus, would have the same understanding of population growth as we do,
nothing but an ethnocentric comment
…Can you explain to me how this is an ethnocentric comment, or do you think the fundamental laws of physics and maths are different for 8 legged sea creatures?
Dougal
-
November 3, 2009 at 3:29 pm #94429gamilaParticipant
you say
quote :Can you explain to me how this is an ethnocentric comment, or do you think the fundamental laws of physics and maths are different for 8 legegd sea creatures?i did by pointing out your use of the term scientific
further you talk about physic so listen to one of the greats
quote :Bohr commenting on the dual, or paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics laid the blame on the paradoxes on words, or language. As he said “Dual pictures, dual language: linguistic analysis is the key to the understand quantum mechanics Bohr told his protegee Heisenberg, shattering his hard-won vision of the microworld. The very words physicists use to describe reality constrain their knowledge of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to human understanding -
November 3, 2009 at 4:49 pm #94434Darwin420Participant
Aren’t our concepts based on nature? Laws of nature etc?
Also if you are going to have a debate about whether evolution exists are not….site actual worthy sites….not wikipedia.
Explain to me your idea of devolution…and give me supporting evidence.
BTW all of your "disproofs" are not disproofs at all…it doesn’t support your argument in anyway.For example, you say that scientists can’t tell us what a species is…so therefore evolution doesn’t exist. How does that work?
And if you did more research you would know that it isn’t the fact we can’t define it…it is just that there are many factors that contribute to a "species" it is just difficult to define…like a lot of things.
Your way of arguing is soo fallacious that it is unsettling.
"O since we don’t know what came first the chicken or the egg, or all the answers in the universe…GOD MUST EXIST…INTELLIGENT DESIGN!"
All I want to say, is that your arguments are garbage….your reasoning is garbage…and your assumption that a god must exist since we don’t know all the answers….is garbage.
-
November 3, 2009 at 5:03 pm #94437canalonParticipant
Gamila is not a creationist give him or her that. He is deaf, stubborn, and what is generally known as a post-modernist. A philosophic endeavour that would consider that all human endeavour, including science are social construct. Hence scientific theories have no other values than that you want to give them, and all are equally (in)valid.
As one can imagine, it is not a philosophical trend that got very well with most of the scientific community. And Alan Sokal convincingly (that is if you are a scientist, not one of the victims of the hoax…) proved that this school of thought was … hmmm… not really up to the snuff with all the notions they were using.
As far as I can see (but I am a scientist, not a philosopher) there is nothing useful that came from this school of thought applied to science. But it showed that some philosopher like to talk out of their arses about things that they do not understand (any post by gamila would be a good example of that assertion).In conclusion Please stop answering and posting in any thread started or hijacked by Gamila this will lead nowhere.
-
November 3, 2009 at 8:42 pm #94445robsabbaParticipantquote gamila:3 best disproofs of evolution
1)scientists cannot tell us what a species is
This is actually proof for evolution. According to evolution, species and in particular populations are always in flux. Therefore, we should expect that defining a species would be a problem, since species are NOT static according to evolution. Thanks for the affirmation.
quote gamila:2)scientists cannot tell us what a r phylum isJust as species are not defined by static boundaries, neither are phyla. Phyla are made of up of species, afterall, and nature does not produce phyla. It is a way of classifying organisms and nothing more. Also, you forgot class, order, family, genus, etc. You could have had more "proofs."
quote gamila:The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox
3)who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate withan individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species
either
1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate togetherif this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same timethe other alternative is that some intelligence was at work
Ah yes, The "Insert my own name as an authority" Species Paradox. I have told you this before as you continue to ignore me in your ignorance. But I will explain once more for the other posters and any lurkers out there. Populations Evolve, Not Individuals. Therefore, there was NO first male bird looking for a first female bird on a lonely mission in the wide blueworld. So yes, (2) is sort of correct. There is no problem with this, since evolution is A Change in Gene Frequencies in A Population Over Time. If a particular gene allele provides a fitness advantage It Will Increase In Frequency In The Population Over Time. It is not required that there be multiple mutations in individuals producing the same mutation over and over. This is basic Population Genetics. Thus, The "Insert my own name as an authority" Species Paradox is resolved!
-
November 4, 2009 at 3:14 am #94472gamilaParticipant
you say
quote :BTW all of your “disproofs” are not disproofs at all…it doesn’t support your argument in anyway.if biologists cant tell us what a species is or phylum
they cant then talk about evolution ie specis evoluve into other species -
November 4, 2009 at 3:19 am #94474canalonParticipant
Topic blocked, this go nowhere. And Gamila definitely banned for… so many reason that I will not list them all here. But basically repeating the same thing again and again refusing to acknowledge that the answer to the question has been given multiple times in different words, but always amounting to the same.
-
-
AuthorPosts
The topic ‘3 best disproofs of evolution’ is closed to new replies.
