Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Onlyfans. Not related to mating. Unbelievable.
Religion Creationism, Evolution and the Bible
- Thread starter Bacle
- Start date
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
Is anyone on Onlyfans to maybe get married? Anyone at all?
Is bunk. It's not a scientific theory in the least, unlike evolution, which has plenty of evidence to support it, no matter how much you or anyone else wants to deny it.
I could waste my time arguing about it, but this has already been argued about plenty, and was the most popular drama-fest on Youtube until "Atheism+" came along and started all the woke nonsense we see now.
Uh... Mules?
Wargamer08
Well-known member
Those are sterile, not incapable of crossbreeding. Well, the males are totally sterile, the females are like 1 in a million fertile.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
They are incapable of breeding period. They are a genetic deadend.Being sterile makes them incapable of crossbreeding, though, right?
That wasn't specified, though, was it?
In any case, if there happened to be a living example of a common ancestor between say, apes and humans, I doubt either would be able to produce offspring with it either (or would want to for that matter)
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
And here you're showing just how strongly you've absorbed their propaganda.
You're outright saying 'it's impossible to do the type of testing needed to prove whether this is real or not.'
If we can't do a test study on it, how can it be considered scientific?
And here we come back to the standard evolutionist position, dismiss without evidence. It's not that irreducible complexity is bunk, it's that there's no response to it, because it is one of several different things that all by itself completely wipes out evolution as a theory of origins.
I'd say it's just being dismissed as heresy, but members of a religion can look at its religious text and argue with each other over whether or not that is in fact what it means. Evolution doesn't even have that, just naked assertion that it is true, ignore any standard of falsification out there.
King Krávoka
An infection of Your universe.
From the disturbed contents of the world, one can find it hard to believe that it is the work of a singular and perfect creator. There are suggestions that some, or all of it, was created for malevolent reasons. I think that this is disrespectful to both God and the creations, and contradictory to the implications in Genesis 1:31 that all Creation was good. But the world is not just God's fancy, it was made for Us, who took transience in a transient world for Our eventual perfection. If it was made for Us, why would We have no influence on its creation? And would yet-perfected spirits make good decisions or even stick to them, hence the extinctions.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
That the current state cannot function with further reductions does not provide any logical proof that a process of iteration cannot generate it. Carving arches into solid stone comes to mind, wind and water can do this as nothing but simple mechanical outcomes of physical laws.
Evolution can still occur if the complexity continues function when modified, or if there are things that can be added without fatal loss of function. "Irreducible complexity" is not a disproof because you do not have to be able to reduce it for it to mutate.
Evolution does not actually regress to origins, though. Its statement is that current variety exceeds original variety, which is incredibly obvious in a great many areas of animal husbandry, botany, and agriculture. They're all predicated on traits arising that were not inherited.
Species are decided by a very awkward mix of average sensibilities and hard logic. Cladistics are an utter nightmare because getting to a hard line can take an absurdly long time. Ring species, such as the genus Larus gulls, demonstrate the mechanism of speciation as a spatial difference in the present, rather than something assumed in unobservable eons past.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
These are cool btw. A+B is a viable breeding pair, B+C is a viable breeding pair, C+A is not a viable breeding pair. A nice simple three way example.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No, it does not.
The problem with irreducible complexity isn't just that you have systems which cannot function without every part of it intact, it's that many systems both cannot function without every component, but also the creature cannot survive without that system functioning, and multiple key components of the system aren't found in any other part of the organism, so there is no way for it to have 'evolved' in small increments from another, similar system.
For two examples, you have the blood clotting system and sexual reproduction. A species cannot survive without these systems, both of which are fairly complex, and if you take any one element out of them, they do not work, meaning that the current generation becomes the last generation of the species. With the blood clotting system, if you remove one of certain elements of the system, the blood starts instantly clotting everywhere, killing the creature outright.
Worse, because the the process of natural selection requires that the 'most fit' creature is the one consistently surviving to reproduce, that means that if you had a partially complete system which wasn't killing the creature or rendering it infertile immediately (let's say a partially functional way of sweating, for example), then that system is dead weight, taking up resources within the organism for no benefit, then that creature is less fit than the ones that do not have this incomplete system.
Which means that other examples of the species survive to breed, making that 'partially evolved system' into a dead end.
On top of all of this, the fact that multiple key parts of life-critical systems are not found in any other part of the organism mean that it must have been some sort of long, involved process to 'evolve' into being, except that the first generation without a functional version of this is the last generation of the species.
And you aren't going to get a species 'evolving' a second means of clotting blood if it already has one, or a second means of reproducing if it already has one, because again, by the rule of survival of the fittest, all members of the species that have this incomplete system are less fit, and therefore will be beaten out by those without it, who make more efficient use of resources. This is particularly important, because it's not just one or two generations that need to survive with this partially-intact system, it's tens to hundreds of thousands of generations that first need to survive with this gradually 'evolving' system which is an increasing drain on resources the more and more complex it becomes, and then they need to survive with the old reproductive system evolving 'away,' because newsflash, creatures like mammals, birds, and reptiles don't just have only one reproductive system, they have no trace whatsoever of any other reproductive system.
All of this taken together means that any reasonable person who approaches the topic of 'On the theory of origin of species by means of natural selection' with a starting attitude of 'I don't know yet whether this is true or false,' will conclude that it's false.
Because remember, the standard for falsification for a scientific theory is that if one thing happens which utterly defies the theory, then the theory is wrong, and an alternate hypothesis must be formulated to explain the observed phenomena.
But that's not the standard that evolution is held to (much like CRT). Evolution within the majority of the academic establishment is approached from the attitude of 'we already know this is true, so how do we fit the data to our theory?' rather than trying to fit the theory to the data.
To quote Richard Lewontin:
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "
This is why evolution functions as a religious dogma, because atheistic materialists are already committed to materialism, so any explanation that is not materialistic is already ruled out. Moreover, it's specifically to try to keep God out of the picture.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
I have not said that at all. In fact, I gave you a proposed experimental design. I think at our current level of technology, the political and financial context of scientific research, and the extreme difficulty of creating a test environment over the time scales we'd need to properly test the theory it's unlikely that we'll be able definitely falsify.
I personally think we won't be able to definitely falsify or confirm the theory until humanity as a whole has the ability to run million year long uninterrupted studies simulating the sort of conditions we theorize speciation to occur. I'm sorry if that seems like a cop out but that's just what we'll need to do. It's not people who believe in the theory of evolution that need to run this sort of experiment because we're convinced by all the other experiments that confirm bits and pieces of the theory or related hypotheses.
Edit: Still annoyed at the scare quotes. 'it's impossible to do the type of testing needed to prove whether this is real or not.' Fucking... why do internet people always do this? This is the second time in a week someone's just made up whole cloth what they think I've said instead of engaging with what I've said. Ugh.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
There's a lot of things that can be profoundly fucked up without actually ending a population, because evolution is actually survival of the good enough. It tends towards increased fitness because such has higher reproductive success, but less-fit organisms do not automatically die.
For one, the timeframe there is over a billion years, for another, there actually are such traces. Or have you never heard of parthenogenesis? The advantage of sexual reproduction is specifically that it offers more opportunity for variance, and the intermediary is bacterial horizontal gene transfer.
"Any one thing that proves it wrong" requires it actually prove it wrong. All your arguments are that it is absurdly unlikely. Evolving a complete metabolic pathway for an entirely new source of nutrition is absurdly unlikely. Happened quite abruptly because the precursor mutations were mostly do-nothing.
Your argument is literally "I don't know, therefor God". That because the theory has large unknowns in particulars, it thus cannot be right. Except that evolution is driven by the Law of Truly Large Numbers. That on long enough time scales, individually unlikely events become likely.
The entire point is that it takes observable patterns in domesticated organisms, and extends it backwards to explain why variance is present to begin with. The variety of dog breeds do not make sense in strict creationism, and very nearly every possible mechanism is a way for evolution to exist.
You may as well deny all theories of stellar formation save God placing them in the sky because we cannot observe them because the Genus Homo has not existed long enough. Deep Time science has to work with modeling and estimates because direct experimentation can't happen.
Edit: That there are questions does not disprove a theory. Disproving a scientific theory demands showing it is literally impossible, not merely astronomically unlikely, particularly when dealing with things like evolution where "astronomically unlikely" is a rather normal part of running the numbers.
The odds of a single base pair mutating is something like 10^-10. Since the human genome is around 6.3^10, it happens several times per mitosis event. Add in the way haploid generation works and you end up with "astronomically unlikely" happening with extreme regularity. Hence the gene-repair.
Evolution has some support from ready observations, and produces explanations we can actually use. Creationism is attractive because it allows one to say "because God" to nearly any question of the natural world, making it profoundly useless because it predicts nothing and gives us nothing to do.
Edit 2: A key misconception is that science still operates on strict empiricism, but in reality it's passed beyond that point. About the only such question still standing is turbulent flow, pretty much everything else has to be worked out small steps at a time because the "big picture" has exited comprehension.
Religion does not produce new explanations, and its explanations give very little useful actions to take. Sure, ancient morals are proven to give long-term stable societies, but then the basic way society works has changed purely as a result of raw economic needs to support the current population.
Last edited:
Dragonofchaos
Member
I happen to believe God created man through evolution. 7 days to God may be billions of years to us.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
'Incapable of reproducing' or 'incapable of surviving' were the examples I gave, not 'sickle cell anemia,' 'Down's syndrome,' or any other seriously debilitating but not instantly fatal disease.
If you have no means of reproduction, the species ends with you. If you have no means of clotting blood, you just straight up die. You don't get millions or billions of years to try to eovlve one.
Perthenogenesis is only relevant to species that make use of that. There's a great wealth of species that don't, but it would only take one to functionally disprove evolution.
This is a classic deflection that evolutionists have been using for decades. 'Absurdly unlikely' is understating it.
I once ran a set of numbers, wherein the assumption was that you take the entire mass of the Earth, as nothing but the building blocks of DNA. You have it reacting/interacting for the entire theorized age of the Earth, at a preposterously high rate of reaction (I think I used a million interactions per second). The probability of getting one correct completed chromosome of DNA, much less the half-dozen or so you need for even the simplest of life forms, came out to something like 2 in 10^230.
That's two hundred and thirty zeroes, and I was being generous by allowing for a 10% error rate, which would almost certainly be lethal in any living thing. And this is before you count in all the cellular machinery you need to actually make use of that DNA.
Calculations run by Doctor Chandra Wikramasinghe (I think that's the name) ran the odds at around 1 in 10^80,000.
To put things into perspective, the total mass of the entire observable universe is about 3*10^55 power, which means that if you took the entire mass of the universe made of nothing but the building blocks of DNA, and multiplied it by the estimated age of the universe, 4.34786832e+17 seconds, you end up short over a hundred and fifty zeroes by my far more limited estimate, and short about 79,900 zeroes by Wickramasinghe's number.
To put that into perspective, your odds, using the an insanely unrealistically charitable hypothetical scenario, of getting a single strand of usable DNA, run to at best 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
Using Wickramasinghe's numbers gives you enough zeroes to fill entire pages.
This is not a case of 'oh you Intelligent Design advocates just don't understand how long there was for it to happen in!' No, it's a case of the entire estimated mass and age of the universe are not sufficient to make this as likely as you winning th ePowerball every day for the rest of your life.
Another strawman. I've already demonstrated how you don't actually have a long enough time scale (and I don't know if you're old enough to remember how evolutionists kept increasing the timescale back in the 20th century because they realized they hadn't given themselves long enough), but it's not 'I don't know therefore God.'
It's 'The more we understand about the complexity of life, the more absurd any explenation for such a sophisticated system other than an intelligent designer becomes. We don't consider claiming a computer was made by Dell to be an irrational explanation, why do people insist that be the case for life, the universe, and everything?'
This does not accurately reflect strict creationism, and is just demonstrating a 'looking for confirmation' rather than 'looking for possible falsification' mentality.
And here we get to the root of it. You are requiring the people prove a negative in order to remove evolution from the religious canon of atheism. One of the most fundamental aspects of science is that you can never prove a negative, just prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evolution only has 'support' in determined interpretations, rather than objective observation. It sees similarities between some species and acts like that could only possibly support their theory, when it could just as easily support other theories, such as having a common designer as purported by Intelligent Design advocates. I've also yet sto see how it's 'useful' for anything.
That you can say 'Because God' is useless and predicts nothing shows just how tight your tunnel vision on the issue is. Whether or not the divine exists and what its character is, has profound impacts on all parts of life, and a variety of fields of study.
Just as the ideological consequences of atheism do and have, as seen by the historically unparalleled butchery by atheist regimes in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Last edited:
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Do the wolves you claimed speciated due to behavior get married? Or is there more to mating behavior than where you've moved the goalposts to?
Parthenogenesis still requires a fully developed set of sexual organs to create and grow the embryo/egg. It's not some halfway point between sexual and asexual reproduction, and not possible with an only-partial reproductive system installed.
Last edited:
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
The point I'm making is that this bar is actually incredibly low. You can, in fact, have a considerable amount of resources wasted on developing new clotting mechanisms before losing previous ones that became redundant. Redundant reproduction producing increased variety leading to that variety eventually losing the previous mode is not at all excluded.
Komodo Dragons have fully-featured backup parthenogenesis to restart sexual reproduction from no surviving males. Also vestigial parthenogenesis in birds. It exists, there's not a single recorded case of it actually working. Valid intermediaries do, in fact, exist, with some that can survive off one of the two and the "earlier" option having a non-functional version.
You are literally saying "There being a single species lacking an earlier trait proves evolution wrong". When the entire point is the random addition, loss, and modification of traits being pruned by the needs of reproductive success. Would you really prefer a God that came up with instinctual sibling-murder and strangulation to browbeat females into mating?
To say nothing of how infallibility is called into question by the vast array of functional problems in human biology...
Chromosomes, to be stable, require multiple packing mechanisms that require stable unpacking to read on-demand, to say nothing of the pileup around telomeres... All of which are wholly unnecessary for bacteria, as they use a loop of DNA. You are literally saying it's impossible because a mechanism that can be reduced is too unlikely.
For reference, bacteria exist with merely 130 thousand base pairs, compared to the 6.3 billion in humans. Over five orders of magnitude, with a lot of the functions existing solely as counters to pressures from other organisms, meaning that the Original Organism can be reduced even more than the simplest of extant bacteria.
What is the evidence in favor of your alternative beyond the "absurd" mainstream? What is your alternative explanation for the purpose of all these horrifying mutations and wasteful functions? To say nothing of the sheer omnipresence of spectacular brutality, of course. It's actually uncommon for predators to wait for prey to finish dying before eating them.
Your counter-points rely on your base of knowledge being used to reckon the current state in isolation. Not a judgement of the possibility-space of abiogenesis, of something living arising from inanimate matter, but obsession over right now seeming absurdly implausible because you insist on checking the odds of right now.
Or, for some absurd reason, think that losing now-redundant functions disproves evolution. And that a God who came up with creatures who nearly always have their first born suffocate to death because they have to be birthed through a pseudopenis that has to be torn and stretched is somehow preferable to "nature doesn't care".
I cannot accept Christian doctrine because nature is too shit for it to make any sense to have an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent creator. This is damned near universal of Christian societies as well, no matter how much the Clergy try to stop it, because ditheism with the Devil as the god of evil answers too many of the logical problems.