I just mean that he's asking perfectly valid questions, and the responses are almost religious.

It's precisely because I put so much faith in evidence-based explanations that I'm saying this. We have no idea how the first cells arose. Thousands of things need to happen to get from goo to a functioning cell, and we can only attest to the possibility of a handful of those.

No one has to the honesty to say "We have no idea how DNA came about from randomly jiggling molecules. It's a mystery right now, thought likely one we'll eventually figure out."

Instead we get comments like "DNA came from RNA, you should learn about it", as if that in any way addresses the question he ask.

The questions are reasonable and the answers are not, IMO. Like global warming alarmists, the more you cover up the uncertainty and exaggerate, the more people with minds of their own smell a rat, regardless of how correct you are.

Partly women and men via sexual selection. Partly the survival advantage that a "domesticated" parent confers on a child. It takes an advanced morality and a lot of forward planning and sacrifice to raise a healthy, strong child over 15 years.

Look at people who are close to animals today - people with schizophrenia, or borderline personality disorder. Take away the modern world, and they have a far lower chance of raising a child to adulthood and maximum breeding potential.

Forward planning skills (which is 90% of domestication, IMO), have been strongly selected for, particularly in the cold areas of the world.

In what sense are schizophrenics and people with BPD "close to animals"?

There's evidence-based theories on how DNA came about. Whether you're aware of them or not, and whether there's any consensus on any of them, are separate issues. It's not as if there is no natural explanation available at all.
DNA did come from RNA so it seems like a relevant statement to make. There is also nothing controversial about that statement. Lastly, there are evidence-based theories for what came before RNA. Look into it, if you're so inclined.

(a) just because the mainstream isn't up-to-date with pioneering research in genetics and biology does not mean that there are no explanations available;
(b) just because there is no consensus in the scientific community, as to the best explanation, does not mean there are no explanations available.

I don't believe in evolution for many reasons. The main one is that it's simply a populist concept that makes stupid people feel superior to others.

Very simply put - evolution is simply a word for 'change for the better'. But change, like motion, are erroneous human concepts. It's a bit funny - people see something over here and then over there and say - 'IT MOVED.'

lol

'IT CHANGED.'

lol

At any rate - evolution is at best a fancy word for 'progress' or 'improvement of survivability' depending upon context.

By this definition evolution can't actually create anything and certainly can't explain anything that the simple and straightforward word 'progress' can't. It's not even a word that needs to be used for anything. It belongs in fiction, not in science.

*It does not account for the rearrangement of matter into more refined forms of material being (3rd density experience if we are to follow the trends) and it certainly does not explain away the mysteries like this idiot Dawkins would have you believe. It doesn't do it because it's a tautology - 'change is what causes change'. It's an insult to your intellect. Please stop worshipping false idols for fear of being ridiculed or though uncool.*

In fact - his highly acclaimed book - 'The Selfish Gene' (which hardly any of you have read and that was a solid decision on your part) is a logical disaster. 8th grade writing skills with 3rd grade math (that is to say - hardly one logical thing whatsoever - 'evolution is the answer, because evolution is the answer').


Evolution is not real. Period. It's simply a misused word with vague meaning which has no causal efficiency on its own, but simply describes the unfolding of forces we don't fully understand. I wish it were cleared of all this rubbish so that it could be used properly and fittingly.

I do think, however, that Dawkins has contributed something in that he has explained quite a bit about the behavior and emergent altruism of selfish agents in the realm of human-like animals. I'll give him that and it's actually quite a feat.

I don't believe in god for many reasons. The main one is that it's simply a populist concept that makes stupid people feel superior to others.

They're unable to plan for the future, or even develop a mind map that corresponds with reality; their actions are often driven by impulses and instincts, little of which flows through or is controlled by a higher mind/sentience.

Many social mammals feel love and affection and pain and sorrow and the longing for freedom and companionship, almost as much as humans do (and more than some humans). So these are not (just) human traits; they are traits of social mammals. The only thing that separates us from animals is the ability to make reasoned and moral choices, to think ahead, to take responsibility, and to "grasp" the world in a meaningful and sentient way.

I have a close friend who is schizophrenic (diagnosed by a psychiatrist and takes medication for it): the bolded is not an accurate description of her mental life.

Oh for sure, schizophrenics run the gamut from to perfectly functional with specific fixed delusions, to lucid much of the time, to utterly gone. I was talking about the latter.

The point I was making was that in animals whose children have very (very) long periods of helplessness in childhood, there's clearly a strong selection bias toward those are stable, moral, attached, capable of planning, capable of thinking, etc.

The bolded doesn't even seem true for animals either.

nope

That is true and a clever observation. Also the distinction of "animal" (or "social mammal") isn't clearly defined either. There seems to be an implicit assumption of "human" as "not animal" or "social mammal". There seems to be a category error, ie analogous to something like ""unlike vehicles, sportscars are usually designed to go fast".

An interesting point is that mammals and birds squids are far more intelligent their common ancestors. So this indicates that intelligence in these groups is an example of convergent evolution.

This in turns suggests that while human introspection might be a good way for understanding other social mammals, it might fail in unexpected ways when applied to other classes of animal. This is further indicated by, despite similarities in intelligence levels, differences in brain structures between the birds, mammals and cephalopoda.

Sent from my XT1096 using 2+2 Forums

This thread is so funny. Clearly god is a man made "being". Would you believe in God if you weren't manipulated as children?

Festeringzit. Are you christian?

Festering Zit; i think that you are actually an evolutionary biologist and just pretending to be this persona.
Every sentence you type is either hilarious, irrelevant, hilarious, false, or hilarious.
If youre trolling, bravo.
If not, our school system failed you and im sorry.

Sent from my LG-D321 using 2+2 Forums

There are a lot of reasons to believe in God beyond indoctrination. Your thesis fails to account for born again Christians, or adult Muslim converts, or people who find spirituality later in life.

The laryngeal nerve is my favourite

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

Arguing that the left RLN is poorly designed implies that God should have used different embryo developmental trajectories for all the structures involved to avoid looping the left RLN around the aorta. One who asserts that the RLN is a poor design assumes that a better design exists, a claim that cannot be asserted unless an alternative embryonic design from fertilized ovum to fetus--including all the incalculable molecular gradients, triggers, cascades, and anatomical twists and tucks--can be proposed that documents an improved design. Lacking this information, the "poor design" claim uses evolution to fill in gaps in our knowledge. Furthermore, any alternative embryonic design pathway would likely result in its own unique set of constraints, also giving the false impression of poor design.

The left recurrent laryngeal nerve is not poorly designed, but rather is clear evidence of intelligent design:

Much evidence exists that the present design results from developmental constraints.
There are indications that this design serves to fine-tune laryngeal functions.
The nerve serves to innervate other organs after it branches from the vagus on its way to the larynx.
The design provides backup innervation to the larynx in case another nerve is damaged.
No evidence exists that the design causes any disadvantage.
The arguments presented by evolutionists are both incorrect and have discouraged research into the specific reasons for the existing design.

http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent...-not-evidence/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman

He must have been so wasted when he thought up giraffes.

The platypus must of been on the wasted day too....

I figure that was the day he let his kid play cut and paste.

Sorry son, I'm out of glitter and macaroni pieces, but I've got some beaks left over.

The T-Rex was a masterpiece! Oh wait, no, he only placed their fake bones underground for us to find. That sneaky bastard.

Crap, I'm out of arms. Add more teeth and he's king of the world.

I beagle your pardon, but can we row you and your Komodo somewhere?