Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:50 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Freshman

Silver Contributor

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Thanks: 94
Thanked: 164 times in 127 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Canada (ca)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Dexter wrote:
person123 wrote:
Why do I need to read any book? What book am I expected to read? All the evolution information is a common knowledge and is presented to the public by mass media.


Well, that's embarrassing. Good luck with your book.


For BT readers who might be a bit less certain about the information they have acquired about evolutionary theory, the Berkeley web site below would be an excellent place to start for someone who wanted to correct, confirm or extend their knowledge of the subject.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... herfaq.php

Below, I have reprinted only a few examples from the site of the 40 or more misconceptions many people have about evolutionary theory.

These and many other explanations from the site would clarify some of the misinformation made by person123.

Misconceptions about evolutionary theory and processes

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below, natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change.

Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.



The following user would like to thank LevV for this post:
geo, LanDroid
Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:13 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
If I was attempting to "destroy" evolution, I'd at least pick up a standard textbook on the subject and learn the basics.

But if you don't want to do that, how about at least a popular level survey:
Coyne, Why Evolution is True
Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Aren't you at least curious what these "jokers" are passing off as arguments?



Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:55 am
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
LevV, why did you write a post on misconsenptions about evolution? We all know what is the theory of evolution about, no one here is making any misconsemptions.

And by the way why did the evolutionists have distanced themselves from the origin of the first cell? Why isn't it also their department? Who supposed to deal with it? It's just one cell after all, it's same biology and chemistry. In my opinion this is not serious, the origin of life has to be part of evolution theory also.

As for your claim that random mutations and natural selection can create new complexity ("the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate"), it was never proven that it actually happens. It was never observed or proven that random mutation+natural selection can build new biological systems. So simply believing in that is same as believing in unicorns and spaghetti monsters. There is no research out there that can support the notion that bats biosonar or the immune system emerged by random mutations and natural selection (I don't know about the flower case). You simply believe in that.

As for third "misconsemption"... you need to provide evidence that evolution can create new complexity, and you can't do that. So no point providing examples of cavefish losing their eyes and claiming that it has to do something with "evolution".
I don't refute that random mutations and natural selections happen, those are real, but there is no evidence to support the claim that those processes can create new life forms out of previous ones. We can breed all kind of dogs, big dogs, small dogs, black dogs, brown dogs etc. But there is no evidence that we can breed a dog with a biosonar.
So imagine if we to find a breed of wild dogs somewhere with a few new organs that allow these dogs to echolocate... so evolutionists first reponse will be "look we made a poodle out of mastiff by selective breeding, so this way we can also make a dog with biosonar... we don't know how, but after billions of years this must somehow happened".


Dexter: "Aren't you at least curious what these "jokers" are passing off as arguments"

But I already know all their arguments, and I have responded and provided an alternative interpretation to all of them. All the evidence for evolution is evidence for common descent, but common descent is not necessarily a product of evolution, but can be also a product of intelligent design. Just like all smartphones look like descendants of Iphone 1, and all cars look like descendants of first Ford car (what ever its name is).



Last edited by person123 on Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.



Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:43 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Discussion Leader
BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2104
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 81
Thanked: 787 times in 609 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
For my understanding human DNA has 700 megabytes worth of data, that means 1-2% is equal to 7-14 megabytes. So if it is so easy and insignificant, please provide an explanation how this 7-14 megabytes could be produced by random mutations.
...If you claim that 1-2% of unique DNA is insignificant, so it is supposed to be very easy to scientists to provide evidence that it could be produced by random mutations. But they don't provide such thing (software simulation, mathematical models, lab experiments).

Consider if the original 700 MB of DNA data never changed, it would remain static and no new information or complexity could arise. However genes (allele frequencies) do change in a population over time. This introduces new information and complexity. These changes interact with the environment and natural selection takes it from there.

Here's a study on biological complexity that concludes "in fixed environments, for organisms whose fitness depends only on their own sequence information, physical complexity must always increase."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18257/



Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:26 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Discussion Leader
BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2104
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 81
Thanked: 787 times in 609 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
LevV, why did you write a post on misconsenptions (sic) about evolution? We all know what is the theory of evolution about, no one here is making any misconsemptions(sic).

That's weird, because when I asked "How do you define evolution?" You responded with the following.
Quote:
That's the funny part. The evolutionists themselves don't have a unified theory, every one interprets it as he please... kind of like the bible. Well the bible at least has an official book.
My definition is that evolution has to demonstrate that it can produce complexity, including the unique DNA that sets humans and apes apart.
Now what happens is that people use the word "evolution" freely to explain every little thing, so they make it look like that it is a proven concept. Kind of like if humans could "evolve" blond hair and blue eyes, then that proves that fish can "evolve" into mammal. But it's not the same thing.

So you claim we all know what the theory of evolution is about, while also stating scientists don't have a unified theory, then providing your own definition in bold above that clearly is not a definition. :x


_________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25


Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Freshman

Silver Contributor

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Thanks: 94
Thanked: 164 times in 127 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Canada (ca)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
LevV, why did you write a post on misconsenptions about evolution? We all know what is the theory of evolution about, no one here is making any misconsemptions.


That post was for any readers who might be interested in expanding their knowledge of the subject. From your previous comments, I didn't expect you to be interested in it.



Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:51 pm
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
LanDroid wrote:
person123 wrote:
LevV, why did you write a post on misconsenptions (sic) about evolution? We all know what is the theory of evolution about, no one here is making any misconsemptions(sic).

That's weird, because when I asked "How do you define evolution?" You responded with the following.
Quote:
That's the funny part. The evolutionists themselves don't have a unified theory, every one interprets it as he please... kind of like the bible. Well the bible at least has an official book.
My definition is that evolution has to demonstrate that it can produce complexity, including the unique DNA that sets humans and apes apart.
Now what happens is that people use the word "evolution" freely to explain every little thing, so they make it look like that it is a proven concept. Kind of like if humans could "evolve" blond hair and blue eyes, then that proves that fish can "evolve" into mammal. But it's not the same thing.

So you claim we all know what the theory of evolution is about, while also stating scientists don't have a unified theory, then providing your own definition in bold above that clearly is not a definition. :x


hehe you started following carefully after my posts, in order to find contradictions. Nice.
I mean there are some basic concepts that we know. That abiogenesis is not evolution (for some reasons that I don't agree with). But as for some people to claim that cavefish losing sight is an evolution, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't think that using examples where random mutation destroys existing information as a proof that it can create new information, is the right way to think.
So I will correct myself: We all know what evolution is, but we have different definitions for it. Levv claims that cafish losing sight is evolution, while I disagree. But I provide explanation why I disagree. So he claims that I have a misconception, while I claim that he is the one that has a misconception...
Is that better?



Last edited by person123 on Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:00 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4396
Location: NC
Thanks: 1866
Thanked: 1937 times in 1450 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
Geo="Look at the blind cave fish as an example. As underground caves are often poor in food and oxygen, natural selection would favor individuals with reduced visual capacity. There’s a very obvious cost-benefit tradeoff."

This is an example of an organism losing information due to random mutations and natural selection, instead of producing new information. This is the opposite from what you claim your evolution can do. This is devolving instead of evolving.


You are strangely fixated on the amount of information in DNA. But evolution is all about improving an organism's chances of survival and ability to procreate (pass its genes down to the next generation). Furthermore an organism's long-term survival often hinges on its ability to adjust to different conditions. The blind cave fish is a splendid example of evolution in action, but due to your misconceptions, you see it as "devolution." You clearly don't understand the subject, which is not surprising in itself. The irony is that you have written a book and say things like "I can see that evolution is just silly." You betray your ignorance at every turn.


LevV wrote:
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below, natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change.

Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:07 pm
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
"Consider if the original 700 MB of DNA data never changed, it would remain static and no new information or complexity could arise. However genes (allele frequencies) do change in a population over time. This introduces new information and complexity. These changes interact with the environment and natural selection takes it from there.

Here's a study on biological complexity that concludes "in fixed environments, for organisms whose fitness depends only on their own sequence information, physical complexity must always increase."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18257/"

I don't like this website, because it has so much data that no one understans, so people always use it as a cover. I'm 100 percent sure that you personally after reading the article from that link, can't understand what they are talking about there and how it proves anything. Evolutionists always use this website. It's like a religious person will respond "go read the bible, the answer is somewhere there".
This is not the first time people used this website while arguing with me, and this is just a trick. Now be honest and admit that you yourself never actually read this article, and even if you did, you didn't understand how it proves that DNA can produce new information by random mutations and natural selection.



Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:12 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4396
Location: NC
Thanks: 1866
Thanked: 1937 times in 1450 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Here's another head-scratcher:

person123 wrote:
you are missing my point... you can arrange all the human made products also in a similar tree, it doesn't mean that they have evolved by random processes. You have a bicycle, then a motorbike, a car, a truck, an airplane. You have iphone 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.. The fact that you can arrange it in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.
You have to prove that the actual evolution mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can really be the creative force behind it. Simply putting organisms in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved, just like putting a bycicle, a motorbike and a car in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.


An evolutionary family tree is not itself evidence for evolution. It merely is a visual for what the evidence shows, that all life is related. A chart showing different iterations of the iPhone only shows a progression of technology. Beyond that, I must be missing your point. If you wish to argue that the evolutionary tree is wrong, you would have to address the fossil evidence and DNA studies that the evolutionary tree is based on. Right?

Also, in LevV's post is the misconception that evolution is random. Some of the mechanisms are random, but natural selection itself is driven by selection and adaptation. It's a rather important point.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:15 pm
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
"You are strangely fixated on the amount of information in DNA. But evolution is all about improving an organism's chances of survival and ability to procreate (pass its genes down to the next generation). Furthermore an organism's long-term survival often hinges on its ability to adjust to different conditions. The blind cave fish is a splendid example of evolution in action, but due to your misconceptions, you see it as "devolution." You clearly don't understand the subject, which is not surprising in itself. The irony is that you have written a book and say things like "I can see that evolution is just silly." You betray your ignorance at every turn."
No, this is not the main purpose of the "evolution theory". The main purpose is to provide an explanation for the origin of species, and not "adaptation of the species".
So this is what you evolutionists do, you mix it up together. You use it to explain how organisms adapt to their enviroment, and then quietely and unnoticably you also use it as explanation for the origin of new species... "you see this fish lost its eyes... so that proves it can evolve into mammal"... no, this is not how it works.



Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:17 pm
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
geo wrote:
Here's another head-scratcher:

person123 wrote:
you are missing my point... you can arrange all the human made products also in a similar tree, it doesn't mean that they have evolved by random processes. You have a bicycle, then a motorbike, a car, a truck, an airplane. You have iphone 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.. The fact that you can arrange it in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.
You have to prove that the actual evolution mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can really be the creative force behind it. Simply putting organisms in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved, just like putting a bycicle, a motorbike and a car in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.


An evolutionary family tree is not itself evidence for evolution. It merely is a visual for what the evidence shows, that all life is related. A chart showing different iterations of the iPhone only shows a progression of technology. Beyond that, I must be missing your point. If you wish to argue that the evolutionary tree is wrong, you would have to address the fossil evidence and DNA studies that the evolutionary tree is based on. Right?


Excuse me first you say that the tree don't prove evolution... but then you call it "evolutionary tree"... so based on what you call it "evolutionary"? Don't call it that way then.
And this is exactly my point, you said it youself initially: "It merely is a visual for what the evidence shows, that all life is related.".
But "related" doesn't have to mean "evolved", just like all the iphones being related doesn't mean they evolved... you understand my point perfectly.



Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:23 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Discussion Leader
BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2104
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 81
Thanked: 787 times in 609 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
I don't like this website, because it has so much data that no one understans, so people always use it as a cover. I'm 100 percent sure that you personally after reading the article from that link, can't understand what they are talking about there and how it proves anything. Evolutionists always use this website. It's like a religious person will respond "go read the bible, the answer is somewhere there".
This is not the first time people used this website while arguing with me, and this is just a trick. Now be honest and admit that you yourself never actually read this article, and even if you did, you didn't understand how it proves that DNA can produce new information by random mutations and natural selection.

You complain that scientists do not provide evidence about random mutations. But when such studies are presented, you do not understand and summarily dismiss them. We see the contradictions where you refuse to read books on evolution to learn more about it, cannot even define it, and dismiss information you don't understand. You appear to be in a non-evolving stasis on evolution, having strong and unusual opinions, but incapable of learning anything new about it.



Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:12 am
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
I know that website. It doesn't produce what you all claim that it produce. If you were honest, then you would admit it. To claim that that website proves evolution, is the same as to claim that bible proves god.
I want someone here to tell me that he went to that article, read it, and understood how it explains that random mutations can create new complexity. There is no such person here, but the worst thing is that no one here will admit it. But even though you all will claim that I have to read it, and I have to understand it, and I have to see how it proves evolution... this is some fanatic stuff here. This is some kind of cult.



Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:42 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6363
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1850
Thanked: 2037 times in 1542 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
I know that website. It doesn't produce what you all claim that it produce. If you were honest, then you would admit it. To claim that that website proves evolution, is the same as to claim that bible proves god.
I want someone here to tell me that he went to that article, read it, and understood how it explains that random mutations can create new complexity. There is no such person here, but the worst thing is that no one here will admit it. But even though you all will claim that I have to read it, and I have to understand it, and I have to see how it proves evolution... this is some fanatic stuff here. This is some kind of cult.

We could leave complexity out of it, I would think. Evolution isn't necessarily toward more and more complex organisms in each instance of change. Why would it be? Over the long haul, then of course we see that more complex organisms emerged, but adapting to the environment with naturally occurring variations doesn't require leaps in complexity. That's my non-scientist's take on it, at least. Complexity is one of those things hard to judge, anyway. Are we humans the most complex animal, for instance? Depends on what you are looking at--physiology, brain, size of genome, or other measure.

I see that accepting evolution through natural selection is mind-stretching, involving spans of time we have difficulty comprehending. The randomness of the process, I think you over-stress. I also see signs of an argument from incredulity in what you say. That we are unable to believe something isn't by itself a good reason to reject it. You may not be able to understand how natural selection works (neither may I, in real detail), but the theory of evolution still works based on what we can easily observe or surmise. It isn't necessary to physically observe species change in order to think it is very real (for that matter, that we haven't observed it might not be true). Science proceeds by inference all the time.

Trying to set the clock back 200 years is a big task. Well before Darwin, the idea of species evolution was in the air, pushed by the new knowledge that the earth was millions, not thousands, of years old. When Darwin published his book, many educated people were primed to fully accept his theory. The reason wasn't, contrary to your claim, that they needed a new religion to replace one they could no longer accept. Generally, believers accommodated their Christianity to evolution.



Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:59 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank