Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
In India, we know Shamans of all kinds well. Tribal, Hindu, Muslim, etc.
Yeah, anyone can make a mistake.
Evolution is Unscientific
- Thread starter SufiPhilosophy
- Start date
That is like saying that you give the credit to atoms or electrons .. you are
just stating our physical observations, and not the reason why things happen that way.
I do not believe that the universe could evolve as it has, without some reason and
without it being set-up by an intelligent being of some kind.
I have no good reason to believe that mankind's intelligence is an "accident" caused by
an indifferent process that just happens to be.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
You have a right to your views even if they do not match with findings of science.
I believe it is wrong to conclude that because 'science' refuses to accept 'God did it' as an explanation and goes on to investigate how the universe and life could have come into being from 'nothing' without allowing religious belief to influence its findings or the questions -- therefore that science' declares: 'there is no God'.
Good science prefers not to go there. Good science prefers just to 'shut up and calculate' -- and not to write books insisting God does not exist. It is a total mission creep, and there are many scientists who do not think that way.
There may be, there may not be a God -- good science does not decide or comment. IMO
Last edited:
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,803
- Reaction score
- 1,052
- Points
- 108
NO again you misunderstand -- Lamarckism is about passing down acquired traits. That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about how traits that help us reproduce, will be passed down BECAUSE they show up in the next generation.
NOT the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,803
- Reaction score
- 1,052
- Points
- 108
More precisely, birds fly because evolutionary processes allowed wings to develop because something in the environment favored wings. Something in having wings made it more likely individuals with wings / individuals who could fly, would pass their genes to the next generation.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,803
- Reaction score
- 1,052
- Points
- 108
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
And they could sweep down speedily on their prey from the skies. Another way to get food and survive.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Ahhh, instead of saying God did it, you say evolution did it. This is not science.
This looks like a very primitive and simple pile of bones, and if you stood them next to a formula one car engine, the engine would look far more complex. We can make efficient car engines, but we can't make a good robotic version of ourselves. The truth is, the skeletal system is far more complex than any other engineering project mankind has created.
if you asked the best engineers in the world to replicate these bones, and create a robot that could do what we do, the robot would be primitive by comparison. If an engineer made one left hand, it would be fairly easy to make another left hand. However, if you asked for a mirror image right hand, the engineers would have to come up with a new set of drawings; very similar, but totally different.
In reality, every bone in your picture would be made of of billions of cells, and billions more cells would be needed to form ligaments, muscles, tendons, skin, nerves. sensors would be needed to direct the hand, a brain would be needed to understand what the sensors perceive.
Random mutation has to happen, but how do you randomly put together billions of cells to form any bone, ligament, tendon or muscle? Evolution has no goals, so how does it know what a hand looks like? Natural selection can only work on what has been produced by random mutation.
When you say evolution did it, we would like to know how?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Yeah, abiogenesis and evolution did this. This is science.
The image is of bones in a human hand. It is quite versatile.
We will get there in time (now that we have 3-D printing).
"3D bioprinting enables scientists to more precisely engineer tissues. Wake Forest scientists have been lab growing organs and tissues for years. They've used 3D printing to create in the laboratory essentially a mini-kidney and a mini-liver.
Google Search 15-Feb-2023
3D-printed organs may soon be a reality. 'Looking ahead, we’ll not need donor hearts'
It sounds fantastical, but 3D bioprinting is already happening.
They have not been put randomly. It has taken evolution 3.5 billion years to achieve that. So, give us some time. Evolution does have a goal - to keep abreast of its environment.
Evolution - Wikipedia
..and for G-d, 3.5 billion years is as a fleeting moment..
..so 'evolution' is NOT stupid, in that case?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
That is always a possibility, and an occupational hazard with symbolic reasoning.
Pure, unadulterated Mendelian genetics implies a set number of possibilities. Hypothetically, if mom contributes genes a and b, and dad genes c and d, there are only so many possible combinations: ac, ad, bc, bd. That's it. There isn't any room for genetic "natural experimentation."
So something must impact or affect genetics outside of reproduction. I understand this to be called "epi-genetics," though it has corollary with Lamarckism.
Returning to the concept of wings, what possible "missing link" between a ground dwelling "lizard" and flight? We already understand that a transitional phase that handicaps an individual will either render it unsuitable as a mate or an easy target for a predator.
To be fair, I am aware of a lizard with skin flaps that extend from front to back between the legs, not unlike a flying squirrel. Gliding is significantly different than powered flight. Birds have hollow bones, for one. Logically, the transition between ground dwelling and flight seems rife with obstacles, not least strict Mendelian genetics would not allow the process to begin with. From ground dwelling to flight demands epi-genetics. The same is true of many evolutionary developments.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Funny how the "velociraptor" looks like a Roadrunner, and the "archeopteryx" looks like a pigeon, and the "ichthyornis" looks like a dodo.
All life is related (so my religion states, confirmed by genetics). Butterflies are invertibrates...no bones. No bones means no humerus, radius or ulna.... That's basic biology.
What?
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
So if something in the environment favored symbolic thought, why were humans the only animals affected?
This is a puzzle I've been looking at for many years now, so I really don't expect an answer.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
"Good science," like good Christians, send off alarm bells for me. There simply is no such thing.Even good science has its views on creation and evolution.
Many who claim "good science" are so far removed from pure, genuine science as to border on propaganda and indoctrination, not real science.
We have only achieved what we have achieved because of intelligent design, and mega computers. If you took intelligent design and computers out of the equation, we would never get there.
We see the extent of life today, and if you extrapolate back far enough, we have to conclude that life had to start from non life. Of course abiogenesis happened. The question science need to answer is, how did life start from non life, and only by natural causes. We have lots of wonderful ideas, how abiogenesis might have happened, but we lack the real hard convincing evidence.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Abiogenesis is problematic as well. Here, science is asking us to "take it on faith" that some miracle happened only once, spurring life from non-life.
???
If the situation happened once, shouldn't it happen repeatedly, given the same circumstances? Unless it can be demonstrated that the conditions were so very much different than today (which to my knowledge has yet to be demonstrated), this "one time" miraculous event should be recurring. Either our understanding of the event is inaccurate, or there is some significant piece of the puzzle missing still.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
First prove the existence of your God...and for G-d, 3.5 billion years is as a fleeting moment..
..so 'evolution' is NOT stupid, in that case?
If evolution was stupid, we would not have been here. It changed us from rodents to humans.