Post: #201

Sorry if these points have been covered, but I haven't had a chance to completely catch up with all the posts in this thread. But from what I've seen so far:

1) It's probably not true that human evolution has slowed down in recent decades, let alone stopped completely. In fact it may have increased tempo. Think about how broader your choice of mate is now compared to even your great-great grandfather. Look at Roosh, for example. When he does have kids their mother will probably be a Polish, Russian or maybe Brazilian girl. Whoever she is she is likely to have quite different genes from the kind of girl than even his great-great grandfather had kids with. Actually, and this is the point, than his great-great grandfather COULD have had kids with. Obviously this is down to the ability to travel, and travel fast, the invention of money as a store of value and other factors you can imagine. Anyway, this creates different gene combinations, than could have occurred in times past. This new combination may have either a good or bad outcome. But whichever outcome it is it provides fuel to evolution to work with. On a much more limited scale the ability to sequence genes and perhaps select partners based on the results also creates combinations that would be less likely otherwise. Also, consider women who select sperm donors. They are obviously very picky and will demand all sorts of things. Tall, smart, X race, no mental or physical disease history etc. This in turn results in a statistical increase in...tall, smart and so on over what could be achieved absent technology. Clearly the last two represent a very small number of births currently. But be patient.

2) It's interesting to debate group vs gene centered evolution vs no evolution at all. My view is that the gene centered view makes the most sense. For a very basic, and as far as I can tell not a controversial/debatable, reason. The "thing" that is replicated when organisms reproduce is not the individual or group, but the gene. With extremely high fidelity. We all seem to be getting carried away emotionally, but the reason most biologists look to the gene is simply for this reason. Not really any philosophical or emotional reason. If individual organisms cloned themselves when reproducing themselves presumably Dawkins book would have been called "The Selfish Organism". But if they cloned themselves we almost certainly wouldn't have advanced life. Absent genes (or rather a generic unit of heredity) the religious critics of evolution would have a point because I don;t think a process that results in complexity can be envisioned if whole organisms simply cloned themselves. The genes clone themselves(99.99..%?), but must "cooperate" with other genes to create agents for their own cause(to replicate).

3) Even considering (2) the gene centered view will certainly yield in some way in times to come. Simply because in time everything yields. My vote for how to progress, how to know which direction to head in, would be to sequence the full genome of, ideally, all living things and then use this information to drill down to what genes really do, when they arose, and how they ineract with one another. Molecular biologists have techniques for "looking back" in the genetic history by comparing the changes in "junk" DNA, that has not been subject to selection pressure, and DNA that has been subject to selection pressure. This supposedly gives an indication of how old a gene is. A biological "carbon dating" I suppose. This, especially the collection bit, sounds extremely boring - a grind - but is probably the best way forward. Having this data will also partially address the criticism of gaps in the fosill record.(Oh, as an aside. The fossil record is incomplete because which organisms fossilise is not completely down to random factors. The organisms that existed in specific kinds of places are much more likely to have left fossils than those in others. Climate at the time of death is only one factor.)

Post: #202

I am not sure what to think of Roosh's article, which in some ways I both agree and disagree with, but that supposed "rebuttal" from this "themanthemyth" (whomever the fuck that is?) blogger that Caveman cited is so poorly written and unconvincing that I'd side with Roosh by default. This guy wrote an incoherent ramble with a lot of snark and no counter-arguments at all. He writes like a feminist.

If that person is what's considered a champion of intellectual thought nowadays, then god(s) help us all.

Post: #203

(06-06-2015 08:06 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  So you will just glance over responses to this? I'll have to repeat then.

Primordial soup. Primordial soup. Primordial soup. The ocean contained the necessary base chemicals. Rocks had nothing to do with it.

Respond.

I don't think we've ever proved either that the primordial soup existed or that it would provide the said results.

Quote:Nobel laureate George Wald of Harvard admitted:

We tell this story [of the Miller-Urey experiment] to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte...ticle=1108
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/in...iment.html

Post: #204

Yeah, that may be true.

But the answer still doesn't involve rocks turning into people.

Post: #205

to me evolution is an endless cycle of:
reproduction + variation (mutation). Every variation either manages to continue the cycle or not. Some do, some don't. As evolutionary principles more so mechanisms can be applied to almost every evolutionary agent in a market (
animals->heritage: genes,socialisation,
bacteria->heritage: genes,
companies->heritage: corporate manifestos, structures, processses, investments
states->heritage: bill of rights, structures, processses, investments,
humans-> hertiage: genes,socialisation,investments)

I see no proof that they don't apply to our current state of western culture. Our society has just reached a state of maladaptive behavior.

Anybody who believes in god or intelligent design has to ask who designed the intelligent god/designer, and also who was the designer of the designer............ it is a cheap answer for our brain to not obsess about things that are not relevant to our main task (fucking)

Post: #206

Absolutely relevant to this discussion:





Skip to the 23rd minute of this video (exactly).

Post: #207

(06-11-2015 05:57 PM)void Wrote:  Anybody who believes in god or intelligent design has to ask who designed the intelligent god/designer, and also who was the designer of the designer............ it is a cheap answer for our brain to not obsess about things that are not relevant to our main task (fucking)

Uh, no we don't. There's a philosophical idea called divine simplicity. Asking "what created God" is like asking "what assembled the item with one part?" Most of the people who raise the "what created God" objection don't actually know about this idea.

Post: #208

(06-11-2015 05:57 PM)void Wrote:  Anybody who believes in god or intelligent design has to ask who designed the intelligent god/designer, and also who was the designer of the designer............ it is a cheap answer for our brain to not obsess about things that are not relevant to our main task (fucking)

A God would not need a beginning because he exists in higher dimensions beyond time.

If you live outside of time then a beginning and an end is meaningless.
It would be like trying to measure your thoughts with a ruler.

Also, why is it that a God needs a designer but somehow you don't?

This question is more important for you to answer, because the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause.

Post: #209

The last two responses illustrate perfectly why it is impossible to have anything approaching a logical discussion with the religious.

I'm sorry gents but "Because God" or variations on it are simply not answers to anything.

Post: #210

(06-12-2015 07:09 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The last two responses illustrate perfectly why it is impossible to have anything approaching a logical discussion with the religious.

I'm sorry gents but "Because God" or variations on it are simply not answers to anything.

It depends on the presuppositions you hold coming into the discussion.

If you're a theist, "because God" is a perfectly sufficient answer and is correct if God exists.

If you're a naturalist, "because evolution" is a perfectly sufficient answer and is true if evolution is indeed the process which built life.

Frustration comes from the inability to view debate objectively.

Post: #211

(06-12-2015 07:09 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The last two responses illustrate perfectly why it is impossible to have anything approaching a logical discussion with the religious.

I'm sorry gents but "Because God" or variations on it are simply not answers to anything.

That's a very nice ad hominem attack. The idea of "because God" would imply that there are brute facts, or things that do not need/cannot have explanation. I reject that idea. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. That means that God has qualities that we can appreciably discover.

That also means that I reject the "God did it!" that some people like to use as an argument. There are far more advanced theological positions than the ones that atheists like to lampoon.

Post: #212

The difference is that, as an atheist, I am open to suggestions regarding the origins of life. It is not a hard and fast, fixed position. Evolution seems to be the most likely explanation right now...however should that change, I am all ears and more than willing to change my view.

If Vishnu appeared tomorrow on Earth and demonstrated that it was a god satisfactorily, and demanded I worship on pain of death etc...I'd probably get down on my knees and pray (or whatever).

The religious (excluding Vishnu's current followers), however, would reject both these things, irrespective of the evidence or even proof, should it occur.

Irrespective of how convoluted theological positions are, they always ultimately boil down to "because god".

Post: #213

Oh great, "god" in an evolutionary discussion post, that cant be good...

the super convenient crutch for explaining the unknown with the unknown *facepalm

My 2C, "Classic" Human evolution cemented in reproduction and genetic passing on to offspring needs questioning when technology and unreasonal social constructs (and other monkey wrentches) are thrown in.

Post: #214

(06-12-2015 09:59 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The difference is that, as an atheist, I am open to suggestions regarding the origins of life. It is not a hard and fast, fixed position. Evolution seems to be the most likely explanation right now...however should that change, I am all ears and more than willing to change my view.

If Vishnu appeared tomorrow on Earth and demonstrated that it was a god satisfactorily, and demanded I worship on pain of death etc...I'd probably get down on my knees and pray (or whatever).

The religious (excluding Vishnu's current followers), however, would reject both these things, irrespective of the evidence or even proof, should it occur.

Irrespective of how convoluted theological positions are, they always ultimately boil down to "because god".

As an atheist, you're forced to believe in a naturalistic explanation. I agree that a naturalistic explanation is usually what happens. I have no qualms with evolution, and my Christian denomination doesn't have an issue with it. It's largely accepted throughout my denomination.

They do not always boil down to "because God." Read Edward Feser's The Last Superstition. The "because God" idea is really only an issue if you reject the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which I don't, Aquinas didn't, and neither did many other great theistic philosophers.

Post: #215

I'm very confused why people say "evolution explains the origins of life"

Life may have been created by God, brought by aliens, or spontaneously arisen as a complex series of chemical reactions. None of those origins for life have to do with whether, or how, life evolves once it exists.

Post: #216

Exactly. Evolution is a pretty well supported theory. There's a lot of good evidence for it.

Origin of life theories are speculative, though there have been some promising advances in the last 20 years. There is chemical evolution likely involved, but not biological evolution.

Post: #217

Overall, you could say that I believe in evolution (in the "origin of life" sense). But I admit that it is in many ways really a belief, not a certainty, as it requires making many generous and/or unverifiable assumptions to arrive at the desired conclusion.

The fact that all religions suffer from logical holes and absurdities does not mean that evolution must automatically be true, just as the opposite is valid as well.

Post: #218

(06-11-2015 06:52 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I am not sure what to think of Roosh's article, which in some ways I both agree and disagree with, but that supposed "rebuttal" from this "themanthemyth" (whomever the fuck that is?) blogger that Caveman cited is so poorly written and unconvincing that I'd side with Roosh by default. This guy wrote an incoherent ramble with a lot of snark and no counter-arguments at all. He writes like a feminist.

If that person is what's considered a champion of intellectual thought nowadays, then god(s) help us all.

The post was extremely rude and disrespectful, but he had many legitimate points.

Quote:In the first sentence of his second paragraph Roosh talks about how evolution describes the origin and evolution of life on Earth. We’re off to a rocky start here. Evolution does not describe the origin of life. Swing and a miss. This does not bode well for our hero. While some people may say this is mere semantics or quibbling over trivialities, the truth is, to me this proves Roosh doesn’t understand what evolution is about. The devil is in the details and this is science, folks. There are A LOT of details.

If you look past the unkind language: his argument is mostly well-formed and his facts are correct. Evolution does not describe the origin of life, Roosh claimed it did. He admitted this was a minor point and explained why he thinks its important.

Quote:Roosh states, “Anti-evolutionary behaviors should have been weeded out of the gene pool according to the idea of natural selection, but the more I looked around, the more I saw nothing but my own behavior, of people who were actually frightened to death about being a parent even though they were healthy and could afford to raise children.”

Evolution doesn’t select for or against “anti-evolutionary” (whatever the fuck that means) behaviors. First we need a definition of that term – because it’s not a real word. Maybe he means behaviors that do not result in greater reproductive fitness? Let’s assume that’s what he means and go from there.

Evolution doesn’t “weed out” anything. As long as a particular gene, phenotype (physical expression of a gene or genes), or behavior doesn’t decrease the likelihood or an organism reproducing across the species then it probably will remain for as long as that species continues to survive. The appendix is a good example of this phenomenon. We don’t really think it helps us survive better or make more babies, but it’s not really killing enough people to have a major impact on our reproductive fitness as a population so it remains. We see this pattern a lot in biology. Weird, wonky software or hardware that isn’t so deleterious as to prevent the organism from successfully passing on its genes, so these quirks remain.

Once again, if you look past the condescending tone, he makes a number of important points. Sure, it's rude to mock Roosh's use of the term "anti-evolutionary," but the point is correct, it's not a word commonly understood to be meaningful. He picks the most likely definition based on context and proceeds to rebut the point he believed Roosh was trying to make. (SJWs do not do this. They will deliberately ignore the points you were trying to make to fixate on irrelevant details)

The counter-argument that follows is well-formed. He states the contradiction, describes it with some detail, then points out real-world evidence supporting his point (the appendix). Whether or not you believe the counter-argument was adequate to conclusively prove Roosh wrong, it is nevertheless a valid argument.

And so on. I don't think I need to do a meta-analysis of every single counter-argument he makes to suggest that claiming that it has "no counter-arguments at all" and "argues like a feminist" isn't accurate.

Post: #219

(06-12-2015 07:09 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The last two responses illustrate perfectly why it is impossible to have anything approaching a logical discussion with the religious.

I'm sorry gents but "Because God" or variations on it are simply not answers to anything.

Going to do some semantic nit-picking here: it's impossible to have anything approaching a scientific discussion about religious explanations for phenomena.

Logic is logic. You can still be logical in the sense "this follows from that, etc." in the context of a religious discussion. But sometimes you have to accept that the premises may be articles of faith and would be meaningless a scientific context.

A religion changing the definition of God to be consistent with modern scientific knowledge is not illogical, it's unscientific.

Post: #220

Of course evolution has been occuring...Roosh and the vast majority of you dont understand evolution. First, one of the biggest things is that people with poor eyesite are able to procreate thanks to technology. We are becoming a weaker species in certain aspects as a result. Also, people are becoming less violent. There are 3 races in this world...read a book people!

Post: #221

(06-12-2015 05:47 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I'm very confused why people say "evolution explains the origins of life"

Life may have been created by God, brought by aliens, or spontaneously arisen as a complex series of chemical reactions. None of those origins for life have to do with whether, or how, life evolves once it exists.

Current evolutionary models don't explain the origin of life, But they do explain, extremely well, how complexity arises from simplicity, and also, to take a slightly different angle, how randomness gives rise to order. Think about how big a deal that is. So evolutionary theory carries you as far back as extremely simple replicators. I don't really care for religious debate, but to me Darwinism provides a much more elegant "creation myth" than any religion.

All this grumbling over this or that little hiccup is just dwarfed by the immense explanatory power of Darwinism. So the theory accounts for the development of multitudes of complex lifeforms from extremely basic forms over billions of years, but people want to grumble about the little that is not yet demonstrated. Maybe the fact that it seems so simple is what upsets people. But a lot of great ideas are simple.

About the only field of study that can give you a bigger thrill is Physics. But that is substantially harder to understand than biological evolution.

Post: #222

(06-03-2015 08:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:  It's interesting how Roosh points out that man has an innate sense of altruism, an innate desire for communication (fellowship), and an innate predilection for honesty. These certainly do not seem like the sort of traits that man would innately possess if he were a Darwinian savage, the product of million of years of brutal, winner-takes-all competition for survival. Rather, these traits speak to an inner nature of man that, paradoxically, seems greater than what man himself is capable of, especially if man is nothing more than just another animal trying to survive. These traits, which represent the best of humanity, indeed seem positively inhuman if man is nothing more than a product of evolution. Of course, there is another explanation for how and why man possesses such inborn traits: man was created in the image of God,

I disagree that the communication, kindness and honesty you mention are anti-survival traits in most situations and times.

Because my Mom said "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

Tasks that create/maintain power centers/empires ( bridges, roads, drones, vaccines) take very, very extensive honest communication and cooperation, including revealing bad news to one's detriment.

Who do you personally want to associate with?

Honest, kind communicators or devious, greedy assholes? Remember, a good greedy asshole will act honest and kind until he gets the opportunity for a maximal payoff betrayal.

I am literally in the process of selecting a mate and I am screening like crazy for these three qualities. Evolution at work.

Bringing Bronze age cosmology and pre-evolution Creation ideas in as explanation seems irrelevant and unnecessary. Such texts are great poetry, and contain nuggets of practical wisdom, but are utterly outdated in explaining things scientifically.

Post: #223

(06-17-2015 01:42 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  All this grumbling ... is just dwarfed by the immense explanatory power of Darwinism.

+1 rep great phrase and point.

Post: #224

(06-12-2015 05:47 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I'm very confused why people say "evolution explains the origins of life"

Life may have been created by God, brought by aliens, or spontaneously arisen as a complex series of chemical reactions. None of those origins for life have to do with whether, or how, life evolves once it exists.

I don't get this distinction. Any chemical reaction that would tend to repeat, and thus after a long fucking time give rise to reproduction and survival activity, would seem to be part of evolution.

I never even took high school chemistry, so I might be off here lol.

God created life is an atrocious explanation, it leads to the more difficult question of how God was created; an even more unlikely phenomenon since God is more presumably more complex and powerful than amoebas and trilobytes.

Post: #225

^Simply put, evolution is the process by which life changes. It is not the origin of life. That subject is called "abiogenesis", how life came from something that was not alive.