Someone has been banned

AgentOfAllah:
Science generally doesn't adopt superfluous propositions, as such, does not need to agree with the concept of god. God is a stop-gap hypothesis, not a credible scientific discovery!

New evidence cannot change this observation. It has been incontrovertibly shown to be so.


This is not an explanation, it's a claim!

No, having a common ancestor is not the same as having a common designer. In fact, there are many designers in nature. They include temperature, pressure, resource availability, humidity and so on. These factors can design identical twins with the same parents so that they look nothing alike.

I think Butterflyl1on did an excellent job of using scientific basis to debunk evolution in favour of intelligent design.

I will comment on you saying that "God is a Stop Gap hypothesis".

1. If (for the sake of this discussion) God were to exist AND he made the Atoms, Molecules and the chemical reactions that produced DNA and living cells, THEN God cannot be made from Atoms and Molecules. If this same God made the laws that govern everything, then he cannot be subject to those laws.

If the assumption above is true, thenGod cannot be verified by science.

Its like let's say humans made a super robot with a superior Artificial Intelligence which made the robots self aware. Suppose all humans relocated to another planet leaving only these robots on earth. If they were somehow told that they were created by humans (who now live in a yonder pplanet), there argument will be like:

-how does the operating system of man operate. Is the OS designed for 64bit microprocessor or 128bit. Is mans brain duo core or quad core.
-Is there body made of silicone? What kind of metal is used as their skeleton.
-Do they use Li-Ion Batteries or Activated Carbon-Lead Oxide storage cells

Etc.

They will ask the wrong questions hence get wrong answers.
2. Let's assume that history doesn't exist about Automobiles. The conclusion the science will come to when they see the progression between Monocycles, Bicycles, Motorcycles, Tricycles, Cars, Lorries and Trailers is to assume evolution not intelligent design from the same pool of information.

In case of biology, no trace of evolution can be seen (no history) hence they have to come up with an evidence that precludes designer; simply because accommodating a designer in science is no more science.

3. The little I know about mutations is that they seldom produce better organism. Usually, a little change in an aspect of DNA produces hydrous monsters who usually do not survive.

This means that there seems to be a mechanism that prevents evolution of a species into another. Yes, natural selection may bring about qualities or characteristics that are suited to a particular environment but not evolution.

Evolution suggests progressive beneficial mutations which is not found in nature.

shadeyinka:

I think Butterflyl1on did an excellent job of using scientific basis to debunk evolution in favour of intelligent design.

I didn't fully read butterfly's entry, but I think I got the main gist of it. Human limbs grow differently than frog limbs, therefore intelligent design! If there's anything I missed, please point me to it.
I wouldn't call that an excellent rebuttal of evolution simply because evolution acknowledges and studies the variations in different species, it doesn't deny them! As such, I didn't deem it necessary to expend precious effort on such a lengthy epistle that proceeds from a flawed premise.

I will comment on you saying that "God is a Stop Gap hypothesis".

1. If (for the sake of this discussion) God were to exist AND he made the Atoms, Molecules and the chemical reactions that produced DNA and living cells, THEN God cannot be made from Atoms and Molecules. If this same God made the laws that govern everything, then he cannot be subject to those laws.

Fair assessment!

If the assumption above is true, thenGod cannot be verified by science.

If that god is sentient and wishes to be discovered, I don't see why its existence cannot be verified by science. All it would take is to put an unmistakable signature in every biological cell or something. But if that god wishes not to be discovered, I entirely agree! But in this case, there's no way of knowing the difference between a god that doesn't want to be discovered and a nonexistent one.

Its like let's say humans made a super robot with a superior Artificial Intelligence which made the robots self aware. Suppose all humans relocated to another planet leaving only these robots on earth. If they were somehow told that they were created by humans (who now live in a yonder pplanet), there argument will be like:

-how does the operating system of man operate. Is the OS designed for 64bit microprocessor or 128bit. Is mans brain duo core or quad core.
-Is there body made of silicone? What kind of metal is used as their skeleton.
-Do they use Li-Ion Batteries or Activated Carbon-Lead Oxide storage cells

Etc.

They will ask the wrong questions hence get wrong answers.

Fantastic example! Those robots will be apt to ask such questions. If humans then wish to prove definitively, that they created the robots, they can send unmistakable EM signals demonstrating how they created sentient robots. Humans should also answer the questions of these robots, demonstrating that we are nothing like them, not leaving them to guess what the characteristics of humans are. If we fail to do so, the robots aren't to blame for wrong guesses. I mean, I don't know about other humans, but if these sentient robots guess wrong, I will not be putting them on a space craft to the sun as punishment for expressing scepticism about my existence, since that scepticism stems from my failings in the first place.

2. Let's assume that history doesn't exist about Automobiles. The conclusion the science will come to when they see the progression between Monocycles, Bicycles, Motorcycles, Tricycles, Cars, Lorries and Trailers is to assume evolution not intelligent design from the same pool of information.

I don't think science can come to a conclusion about anything without existing history. At any rate, this is false equivalence, because automobiles aren't self-replicating living things. Usually, when scientists discover artificial contraptions without recorded history, they attribute them to ancient civilizations. Some examples are Nok sculptures, Terracotta arts, Stonehenge and many of the Paleolithic tools on record. My guess is that they would do the same if they discovered automobiles without history.

In case of biology, no trace of evolution can be seen (no history) hence they have to come up with an evidence that precludes designer; simply because accommodating a designer in science is no more science.

This is patently false! There are many traces of evolution. I'm too lazy to provide them, but I swear, you'll find them if you just took a second to search on Google.

3. The little I know about mutations is that they seldom produce better organism. Usually, a little change in an aspect of DNA produces hydrous monsters who usually do not survive.

You are right! In fact, we all have an average of 60 new mutations passed to us from our parents, and they seldom have any effect at all. Most species (>99%) eventually just die out, but a handful that experience beneficial mutations may yet live to experience the next epoch. Imagine we ran out of fuel sources and means to generate energy, and a new ice age commences. Then people with hypertrichosis (who we ordinarily wouldn't consider to be normal humans) would likely be better adapted to the new environment, and it might not be long before humans look like hairy apes again. This is how evolution works.

This means that there seems to be a mechanism that prevents evolution of a species into another. Yes, natural selection may bring about qualities or characteristics that are suited to a particular environment but not evolution.

There is no mechanism that prevents speciation. If you stopped thinking of species as discrete points on the biological tree of life, and instead see them as a continuum, then you'll see how adaptation to particular environments is exactly what is meant by evolution.

Evolution suggests progressive beneficial mutations which is not found in nature.

This is not how evolution works! Evolution suggests that nature is mostly a destructive force, not a constructive one. Like I mentioned, most mutations are irrelevant errors in genetic information, but given millions of trials, there's always bound to be that one member of a specie that develops beneficial mutations that might just prove helpful during nature's next wave of destruction. When that happens, all others die, but that lucky basterd and its offspring survive!

I hope this clarifies my position.

AgentOfAllah:

I didn't fully read butterfly's entry, but I think I got the main gist of it. Human limbs grow differently than frog limbs, therefore intelligent design! If there's anything I missed, please point me to it.
I wouldn't call that an excellent rebuttal of evolution simply because evolution acknowledges and studies the variations in different species, it doesn't deny them! As such, I didn't deem it necessary to expend precious effort on such a lengthy epistle that proceeds from a flawed premise.

Fair assessment!


If that god is sentient and wishes to be discovered, I don't see why its existence cannot be verified by science. All it would take is to put an unmistakable signature in every biological cell or something. But if that god wishes not to be discovered, I entirely agree! But in this case, there's no way of knowing the difference between a god that doesn't want to be discovered and a nonexistent one.


Fantastic example! Those robots will be apt to ask such questions. If humans then wish to prove definitively, that they created the robots, they can send unmistakable EM signals demonstrating how they created sentient robots. Humans should also answer the questions of these robots, demonstrating that we are nothing like them, not leaving them to guess what the characteristics of humans are. If we fail to do so, the robots aren't to blame for wrong guesses. I mean, I don't know about other humans, but if these sentient robots guess wrong, I will not be putting them on a space craft to the sun as punishment for expressing scepticism about my existence, since that scepticism stems from my failings in the first place.


I don't think science can come to a conclusion about anything without existing history. At any rate, this is false equivalence, because automobiles aren't self-replicating living things. Usually, when scientists discover artificial contraptions without recorded history, they attribute them to ancient civilizations. Some examples are Nok sculptures, Terracotta arts, Stonehenge and many of the Paleolithic tools on record. My guess is that they would do the same if they discovered automobiles without history.

In other words, God should condense to a Physical verifiable form, THEN, you will believe.

Unfortunately, this assumption is perfectly wrong because, our next line of argument will be that if He is God, then He wouldn't have been made of matter.

If God wrote in the sky: "Behold, I am God"! We will look at the statistical probability (which isn't exactly zero) to conclude that it was by chance.

Interestingly, God gave you a conscience to know the right from wrong. To love rather than to hate. To help others rather than to exploit them. Ever seen children at play? They are plain and simple: with no prejudice.

Unfortunately, there is a disease of man which eventually make him selfish and arrogant. That disease was the effect of "spiritual mutation" which made us blind to spiritual things. God is spirit. Now when the spiritual sense of perception is faulty, you can't sense nor comprehend God.

Humans naturally adopt a god (whether rightly or wrongly). It takes a conscious choice to arrive at the conclusion that God doesn't exist. In other words, our will has the power to override our God given instinct of the spirit.

The human state can be compared with that of a chicken who lost her instinct to brood on her eggs. As you know, this happens when chickens are scientifically bred. Christians have always maintained that through Satan, mans spiritual nature was compromised.

The fault isn't God's that we cannot readily perceive Him. He didn't create us that way.

AgentOfAllah:

This is patently false! There are many traces of evolution. I'm too lazy to provide them, but I swear, you'll find them if you just took a second to search on Google.

You are right! In fact, we all have an average of 60 new mutations passed to us from our parents, and they seldom have any effect at all. Most species (>99%) eventually just die out, but a handful that experience beneficial mutations may yet live to experience the next epoch. Imagine we ran out of fuel sources and means to generate energy, and a new ice age commences. Then people with hypertrichosis (who we ordinarily wouldn't consider to be normal humans) would likely be better adapted to the new environment, and it might not be long before humans look like hairy apes again. This is how evolution works.


There is no mechanism that prevents speciation. If you stopped thinking of species as discrete points on the biological tree of life, and instead see them as a continuum, then you'll see how adaptation to particular environments is exactly what is meant by evolution.

This is not how evolution works! Evolution suggests that nature is mostly a destructive force, not a constructive one. Like I mentioned, most mutations are irrelevant errors in genetic information, but given millions of trials, there's always bound to be that one member of a specie that develops beneficial mutations that might just prove helpful during nature's next wave of destruction. When that happens, all others die, but that lucky basterd and its offspring survive!

I hope this clarifies my position.

I think what you have described is still selection rather than evolution.

In selection, interbreeding is still very possible. Like, imagine a world in another 1000 years of ice age where people with hypertrichosis are the only survivors. You can pick any one of them and mate them with any normal human and they will reproduce. However, in the case of evolution, reproduction is almost impossible. Only few instances of interspecies cross reproductions are known. I don't know if any human -ape crossbreed had ever been documented despite the claim that we are relatives.



I thought you were a physicist?
What's yu doin with evolusion!

shadeyinka:

In other words, God should condense to a Physical verifiable form, THEN, you will believe.

No no no no NO sir! It's not right, what you've done. I prefer you don't put words in my mouth in order to make your point. I never said such a thing. If you read my post again, all I said was "unmistakable signature". If god condenses to a physical form that is mistakable for something else, then god will be mistaken for something else. Please ask for clarification before misinterpreting my statement.

Interestingly, God gave you a conscience to know the right from wrong. To love rather than to hate. To help others rather than to exploit them. Ever seen children at play? They are plain and simple: with no prejudice.

This claim is lacking in evidence!

Humans naturally adopt a god (whether rightly or wrongly). It takes a conscious choice to arrive at the conclusion that God doesn't exist. In other words, our will has the power to override our God given instinct of the spirit.

This has been demonstrated not to be true. Rilwayne001 made a similar claim before, and I quoted the relevant research that showed otherwise in his thread on whether we are born atheists.

The human state can be compared with that of a chicken who lost her instinct to brood on her eggs. As you know, this happens when chickens are scientifically bred. Christians have always maintained that through Satan, mans spiritual nature was compromised.

Again! Don't attribute knowledge to me, which I haven't claimed to have.

fault isn't God's that we cannot readily perceive Him. He didn't create us that way.

Maybe you should ask your bible whose fault it is that satan exists.

I think what you have described is still selection rather than evolution.

I think the theory is specifically named Evolution by natural SELECTION. Your attempt to make this false distinction seems frivolous to me.

In selection, interbreeding is still very possible. Like, imagine a world in another 1000 years of ice age where people with hypertrichosis are the only survivors. You can pick any one of them and mate them with any normal human and they will reproduce. However, in the case of evolution, reproduction is almost impossible. Only few instances of interspecies cross reproductions are known.

And are these few cases a result of selection or intelligent design?

I don't know if any human -ape crossbreed had ever been documented despite the claim that we are relatives.

Nor do I! Yet, I fail to see your point. Given enough genetic drift in sexually differentiated species, then chromosomes will not be able to pair anymore. In such a case, crossbreeding becomes impossible. I don't see how this falsifies the theory of evolution.

I thought you were a physicist?
What's yu doin with evolusion!

Technically, every natural science (biology and chemistry included) is a branch of Physics. But yes, Biology isn't my core area of competence. However, I do have especial interest in both primate and cetacea biology! I'm a self-taught amateur with access to the world's biggest repository of knowledge (the internet and academic journals), what excuse have I got not to learn?

Let me ask you the same question: What are you doing with evolution?

AgentOfAllah:

Great start!


Your question then is: Why is the human brain complex? That's a brilliant question. Your hypothesis is that it is a product of complex design. Your hypothesis seems reasonable, but fails on testability (which was what I asked for). Who is this designer? What is the process of design? Have you ever witnessed the design process of this designer?
I have an alternative hypothesis: Evolution. As it turns out, existing evidence demonstrates that the human brain was not always this complex, but grew more and more so through the process of natural selection. Oh, and did I mention the existence of evidence for this hypothesis?
Now tell me, which of the two hypotheses is the more probable?


Simple: I don't accept that these laws were designed because there is yet no evidence to support such a claim.


Evolution doesn't provide evidence for anything, it explains existing evidence. And the weight of existing evidence suggests that this explanation is accurate.


According to the theory, only extinct species stop evoluting (I like your coinage). Presently, humans are of least concern on the extinction chart, so our evolution journey yet continues.


In my first post, I also gave you a sound reason why evolution does not need to give you a biography of our shared common ancestors with monkeys.
To sum it up, I argued that you are unable to produce the biography of the common ancestors you share with your 5th cousin. So please, give direct answers to the following questions:

(1) Do you reject the idea that you share common ancestors with your 5th cousin?

(2) If DNA tests suggest that you do, do you also reject the results?

(3) If your answer is no to the above questions, why do you reject the idea that we share common ancestors with monkeys?

I could not respond to your reply earlier enough... Someone who found my post a heart breaking report me yestatday....and I was banned for no good reasons.....


To your reply....

Why are you misinterpreting my statement... The hypothesis is on the complexity of the design not who design the brain to be complex...what we are testing here is the complexity not the designer....in a simple statement...it is the product we are testing not the manufacturer... If you get my question now...rephrased your questions to suit my claim....

I don't have a problem with human brain evolution...my qquestions is.... what is the cause of consciousness and unconsciousness of the brain.?...unless you are suggesting our proto primate do not have counciousness brain from the start..

.am aware of the human brain evolution... It is shrinking from a size larger than football to the size of tennis ball....our ancestors brain is complex but not as complex to ours...read further.

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/shrinking-brains-intelligence-110207.htm........ the questions come again what Is the cause of consciousness and unconsciousness of the brain?


Since no evidence has invalidate that the laws were not design....why don't you give it a probability chance... May or may not....

you agree human will still evolute? Interesting.... Hopefully another million years according to the science trick formula.... Since we are not going to withness it in our own generation ....it is non of our interest....

If evolution can trace my proto primate to be monkey what is stoping it for giving me my first original ancestors.... Here , you are indirectly saying science has a limitation....it can't go beyond what it can't prove... That is true I also acknowledged it.......


Tbere is no existing evedience we share common ancestors with gorrila... It is evolution who uncover the unknown fact. And that make it evidence......


1.... Why will I reject the idea of sharing common ancestor with my 5th cousins... If there is enough evidence...?.

2...why will i reject scientific evidence...? I am not anti science..

3 my answer is yes to your questions...

I never reject evolution theory.... I only claim I am confused by the part of the claim they can't answer...


But not so quick...a new DNA test claim we share over 97.5 percent similarity with mice...do I also have to agree?

najib632:
Bro pls watch the arrivals series you can get the complete one from torrent sites

so I can accept Hollywood science fictional movies as a replacement of the truth...

vaxx:
I could not respond to your reply earlier enough... Someone who found my post a heart breaking report me yestatday....and I was banned for no good reasons.....

I wish that person a mended heart, and hope they don't have to take their disappointment out on you again.

To your reply....

Why are you misinterpreting my statement... The hypothesis is on the complexity of the design not who design the brain to be complex...what we are testing here is the complexity not the designer....in a simple statement...it is the product we are testing not the manufacturer... If you get my question now...rephrased your questions to suit my claim....

But my dear friend, inherent in the word 'design', is a claim that a purposeful designer exists. So if you must examine the complexity of the design, you are also apt to examine the designer itself, its processes and motives. If you jettison your use of that word, I will not pursue a line of questioning that probes the designer anymore.

I don't have a problem with human brain evolution...my qquestions is.... what is the cause of consciousness and unconsciousness of the brain.?...unless you are suggesting our proto primate do not have counciousness brain from the start..

.am aware of the human brain evolution... It is shrinking from a size larger than football to the size of tennis ball....our ancestors brain is complex but not as complex to ours...read further.

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/shrinking-brains-intelligence-110207.htm........ the questions come again what Is the cause of consciousness and unconsciousness of the brain?

Ah! Good! I felt you meant to suggest that the human brain was designed the way it is. As for consciousness, I don't know its source, nor would I dare suggest our ancestors never had it. However, I am presently working on a hypothesis of mine: We tend to look at consciousness as an expression of the self, a unitary entity. I propose that the self does not exist in the way that we think of it. Instead, the self is the convoluted result of the individual selfish tendencies of our many bodily organs which then become interdependent to guarantee each of their survival. Our organs don't always agree with each other though, so this explains why "we sometimes are in conflict with ourselves". It's why sometimes you feel ice cream is the meaning of life, and why at other times, you feel like puking when you see it. The self, and by extension, consciousness, isn't a unitary entity, but a gallimaufry of organs that are mostly interdependent, but sometimes also in conflict. This hypothesis is still work in progress, but I am very excited about it because it is a problem which can be falsified neuroscientifically. It may end up being stupid, but I intend to pursue it as my personal academic project when I'm done with my present projects. I can't promise I will be able to answer all your questions, but I think your questions will help guide the way I try to address this topic, so please ask!

Since no evidence has invalidate that the laws were not design....why don't you give it a probability chance... May or may not....

It has a non-zero probabilistic chance, I don't deny that!

you agree human will still evolute? Interesting.... Hopefully another million years according to the science trick formula.... Since we are not going to withness it in our own generation ....it is non of our interest....

When you look at a picture of yourself from 10 years ago, don't you feel shock at how much you've changed in that space of time? Do you not find it strange that all the while, as you gradually changed, you probably never noticed it? Evolutional changes are a generational thing. It takes many generations to observe widespread mutations in a population. Unfortunately, in most species, members don't last more than a few generations. So in as much as we would all like to experience how humans evolve, it is unfortunately impossible...unless we find a way to prolong our lives (and our reproductive systems) for thousands of years. Another way to observe that evolution never stops is to look at organisms with lifespans so significantly shorter than ours, that they can have thousands of generations within one of ours. This way, you will be able to see evolution happen live.

If evolution can trace my proto primate to be monkey what is stoping it for giving me my first original ancestors.... Here , you are indirectly saying science has a limitation....it can't go beyond what it can't prove... That is true I also acknowledged it.......

"Indirectly"? Oh! I had no idea you thought I believe science is limitless. Let me be direct then: Science does have limitations!

Tbere is no existing evedience we share common ancestors with gorrila... It is evolution who uncover the unknown fact. And that make it evidence......

There are many: DNA, fossil, anatomical and physiological similarities.

1.... Why will I reject the idea of sharing common ancestor with my 5th cousins... If there is enough evidence...?.

2...why will i reject scientific evidence...? I am not anti science..

3 my answer is yes to your questions...

Did you mean your answer is "no"? Saying "yes" to questions (1) and (2) means you reject the idea that you share common ancestors with your 5th cousin and that you reject DNA tests which suggest as much. But your response to the same questions suggest otherwise. I'll assume you meant "no".
So assuming there is no one to prove that you are related to your 5th cousin and DNA proves this, I assume you will accept it. Now, there is no one alive to tell us we have common ancestors with monkeys, but DNA proves this much, I don't see why you need biographical information about our common ancestors to accept that we are related.

I never reject evolution theory.... I only claim I am confused by the part of the claim they can't answer...

You shouldn't be any more confused by the lack of complete information regarding our shared common ancestors with monkeys than you are confused by the lack of complete information regarding your shared common ancestors with your 5th cousin. I sincerely don't know why you are confused? It is one thing to not know, it is another thing to be confused.

But not so quick...a new DNA test claim we share over 97.5 percent similarity with mice...do I also have to agree?

Yes you do, if you are not antiscience! This has been my argument all along. We also share common ancestors with rats too, which is why they are so effective as human substitutes in medicinal experiments.

AgentOfAllah:
I wish that person a mended heart, and hope they don't have to take their disappointment out on you again.


But my dear friend, inherent in the word 'design', is a claim that a purposeful designer exists. So if you must examine the complexity of the design, you are also apt to examine the designer itself, its processes and motives. If you jettison your use of that word, I will not pursue a line of questioning that probes the designer anymore.


Ah! Good! I felt you meant to suggest that the human brain was designed the way it is. As for consciousness, I don't know its source, nor would I dare suggest our ancestors never had it. However, I am presently working on a hypothesis of mine: We tend to look at consciousness as an expression of the self, a unitary entity. I propose that the self does not exist in the way that we think of it. Instead, the self is the convoluted result of the individual selfish tendencies of our many bodily organs which then become interdependent to guarantee each of their survival. Our organs don't always agree with each other though, so this explains why "we sometimes are in conflict with ourselves". It's why sometimes you feel ice cream is the meaning of life, and why at other times, you feel like puking when you see it. The self, and by extension, consciousness, isn't a unitary entity, but a gallimaufry of organs that are mostly interdependent, but sometimes also in conflict. This hypothesis is still work in progress, but I am very excited about it because it is a problem which can be falsified neuroscientifically. It may end up being stupid, but I intend to pursue it as my personal academic project when I'm done with my present projects. I can't promise I will be able to answer all your questions, but I think your questions will help guide the way I try to address this topic, so please ask!


It has a non-zero probabilistic chance, I don't deny that!

When you look at a picture of yourself from 10 years ago, don't you feel shock at how much you've changed in that space of time? Do you not find it strange that all the while, as you gradually changed, you probably never noticed it? Evolutional changes are a generational thing. It takes many generations to observe widespread mutations in a population. Unfortunately, in most species, members don't last more than a few generations. So in as much as we would all like to experience how humans evolve, it is unfortunately impossible...unless we find a way to prolong our lives (and our reproductive systems) for thousands of years. Another way to observe that evolution never stops is to look at organisms with lifespans so significantly shorter than ours, that they can have thousands of generations within one of ours. This way, you will be able to see evolution happen live.


"Indirectly"? Oh! I had no idea you thought I believe science is limitless. Let me be direct then: Science does have limitations!

There are many: DNA, fossil, anatomical and physiological similarities.


Did you mean your answer is "no"? Saying "yes" to questions (1) and (2) means you reject the idea that you share common ancestors with your 5th cousin and that you reject DNA tests which suggest as much. But your response to the same questions suggest otherwise. I'll assume you meant "no".
So assuming there is no one to prove that you are related to your 5th cousin and DNA proves this, I assume you will accept it. Now, there is no one alive to tell us we have common ancestors with monkeys, but DNA proves this much, I don't see why you need biographical information about our common ancestors to accept that we are related.


You shouldn't be any more confused by the lack of complete information regarding our shared common ancestors with monkeys than you are confused by the lack of complete information regarding your shared common ancestors with your 5th cousin. I sincerely don't know why you are confused? It is one thing to not know, it is another thing to be confused.



Yes you do, if you are not antiscience! This has been my argument all along. We also share common ancestors with rats too, which is why they are so effective as human substitutes in medicinal experiments.

I don't have a problem with them reporting me....my only concern is that moderator also need to do their own investigation....


The premises we are tacking here is on the complexity.... Not on the designer.... If you are interest in such a debate... We may open another thread on it....I think we should be focused.... The question is why is human brain complex ? an undoubted statement you accept...l


Since you are currently working on the question I proposed...whatever you will be claiming may be falsified ..you even accept... As of now it is still an hypothesis.... And therefore it is not useful in this discussion...


It had none zero probability chance you claim? I will treat your claim as an assumption.... If not I will ask the questions again.... Why is our brain conscious and unconcious? Any tested resarch not your own project? You already accept science has limitations.... I am sure the original answer is the limitations of science..

I have a very clear understanding of evolution.... drug resistance is one and growth is another....my own stand here is evoluting from one species to another. Am aware of dog cross breading and likewise other animals....my point is From monkey like to human? Or from fish like to human?

Our Generation can't experience this type of evolution base on science trick formula....therefore it is non of my interest....


I like the truth statement of yours....science has limitations.... I also agree with you

Before evolution theory , there was nothing like any evidence suggesting we share common ancestor with apes...if there is one let me know....they have been so many evidence of DNA similarities between human and other mammals ....not only gorilla... There is a also evidence on fish .....


I already state no to the question....I clearly select no.... My question repeat itself again... If evolution can trace my proto primate to be monkey like , what is stopping them for tracing where my proto primate evolute from? You yourself already answer it. There is limitations....


I am confused for the lack of incomplete information in evolution theory... If the incomplete information is known. It will settle my doubt on the theory once and for all....as it is best, it is still a theory in crisis...


I am not anti science I repeat my self again...almost every animals and plant share a considerable amount of DNA similarities with human...Those that make every animal , plant and human of common ancestors? Your answer here will settle the argument...

vaxx:
The premises we are tacking here is on the complexity.... Not on the designer.... If you are interest in such a debate... We may open another thread on it....I think we should be focused.... The question is why is human brain complex ? an undoubted statement you accept...

I accept that it is complex, I've also said it evolved (by natural selection) to become complex. I don't have any more to contribute on the subject than this.

Since you are currently working on the question I proposed...whatever you will be claiming may be falsified ..you even accept... As of now it is still an hypothesis.... And therefore it is not useful in this discussion...

Not useful? Wow, that was a painful blow! I was under the impression that this is a forum where we can freely exchange and discuss each other's ideas.

It had none zero probability chance you claim? I will treat your claim as an assumption.... If not I will ask the questions again.... Why is our brain conscious and unconcious? Any tested resarch not your own project? You already accept science has limitations.... I am sure the original answer is the limitations of science..

I think you must have misunderstood me. A none zero chance means there is a probability that your supposition is right.

I have a very clear understanding of evolution.... drug resistance is one and growth is another....my own stand here is evoluting from one species to another. Am aware of dog cross breading and likewise other animals....my point is From monkey like to human? Or from fish like to human?

If we didn't witness humans do it, I'm sure people may have claimed a doberman isn't the same species as a pug. Humans are still monkey-like in many ways.

Before evolution theory , there was nothing like any evidence suggesting we share common ancestor with apes...if there is one let me know....they have been so many evidence of DNA similarities between human and other mammals ....not only gorilla... There is a also evidence on fish .....

I could say the same for Newton's theory of gravity. Before Newtons Principia Mathematica, there was nothing like any evidence that the Planet Neptune existed. Neptune was first predicted to exist mathematically, using Newton's theory, and then it was discovered after the prediction. Does this mean Newton invented the planet Neptune? The evidence for our shared common ancestry was always there, it just never occurred to anyone to make the link, not until Darwin did so; and did it with such irrefutable elegance! By the way, when the theory was formulated, we hadn't even discovered the DNA. Surely, that the DNA of all living things have overwhelming similarities lends strength to the theory, it does not weaken it in any way. We are related to fish and trees and bacteria and fungi and even viruses!

I already state no to the question....I clearly select no.... My question repeat itself again... If evolution can trace my proto primate to be monkey like , what is stopping them for tracing where my proto primate evolute from? You yourself already answer it. There is limitations....

Actually, the theory has traced our origins back to a unicellular creature. I don't know what you are asking for here? You want biologists to give you the names, colours, exact pictures, occupations, and political leanings of our common ancestors or what?

I am confused for the lack of incomplete information in evolution theory... If the incomplete information is known. It will settle my doubt on the theory once and for all....as it is best, it is still a theory in crisis...

I'll ask you again: if it doesn't take you anything to accept that you share common ancestors with your 5th cousin, even when you don't know anything about this common ancestor, why is it difficult for you to accept that you can have 1,000th, 10,000th, 100,000th, 1,000,000th, 1,000,000,000th cousins? If you truly believe it's a theory in crises, suit yourself!

I am not anti science I repeat my self again...almost every animals and plant share a considerable amount of DNA similarities with human...Those that make every animal , plant and human of common ancestors? Your answer here will settle the argument...

Of course! The fact that we all have common DNA signatures implies that we have a universal common ancestor.

On a final note: Darwin was not just an excellent scientist, he was also an excellent communicator. So, even if we end this conversation with you firmly of the notion that the theory is under crisis, I would advise you to still read the book: On the Origin of Species. It is not at all complicated, and certainly not boring like many other scientific materials. You will enjoy it, even if just as a storybook.

AgentOfAllah:
I accept that it is complex, I've also said it evolved (by natural selection) to become complex. I don't have any more to contribute on the subject than this.


Not useful? Wow, that was a painful blow! I was under the impression that this is a forum where we can freely exchange and discuss each other's ideas.


I think you must have misunderstood me. A none zero chance means there is a probability that your supposition is right.

If we didn't witness humans do it, I'm sure people may have claimed a doberman isn't the same species as a pug. Humans are still monkey-like in many ways.


I could say the same for Newton's theory of gravity. Before Newtons Principia Mathematica, there was nothing like any evidence that the Planet Neptune existed. Neptune was first predicted to exist mathematically, using Newton's theory, and then it was discovered after the prediction. Does this mean Newton invented the planet Neptune? The evidence for our shared common ancestry was always there, it just never occurred to anyone to make the link, not until Darwin did so; and did it with such irrefutable elegance! By the way, when the theory was formulated, we hadn't even discovered the DNA. Surely, that the DNA of all living things have overwhelming similarities lends strength to the theory, it does not weaken it in any way. We are related to fish and trees and bacteria and fungi and even viruses!

Actually, the theory has traced our origins back to a unicellular creature. I don't know what you are asking for here? You want biologists to give you the names, colours, exact pictures, occupations, and political leanings of our common ancestors or what?


I'll ask you again: if it doesn't take you anything to accept that you share common ancestors with your 5th cousin, even when you don't know anything about this common ancestor, why is it difficult for you to accept that you can have 1,000th, 10,000th, 100,000th, 1,000,000th, 1,000,000,000th cousins? If you truly believe it's a theory in crises, suit yourself!


Of course! The fact that we all have common DNA signatures implies that we have a universal common ancestor.

On a final note: Darwin was not just an excellent scientist, he was also an excellent communicator. So, even if we end this conversation with you firmly of the notion that the theory is under crisis, I would advise you to still read the book: On the Origin of Species. It is not at all complicated, and certainly not boring like many other scientific materials. You will enjoy it, even if just as a storybook.

you already tell me what I want to hear general common ancestors.. that is very fine by me.....


Let me quickly correct some assumptions..

1..we could really share ideas and learn from...each other... you could create a thread on whatever hypothesis you make and lets debate on it....you are not yet an authority...whatever argument you make using your own hypothesis is an assumption...i have never claim to know...i brought existing evidence that has been certified in my argument and not my opinion....



2 am a lover of art and science....so am not a novice of evolution theory...and i dont think i sound like a novice when expressing my veiws


3 i appreciate your response...i learn one or two from you.....


My own advice. ....as an eeducationst.....there is nothing like absolute true.. I study both creationist and evolutionist claim....i see where they both stand and both praticallly make sense...

There is nothing bad in learning from both sides....

vaxx:
you already tell me what I want to hear general common ancestors.. that is very fine by me.....

I'm pleased to hear that.

Let me quickly correct some assumptions..

1..we could really share ideas and learn from...each other... you could create a thread on whatever hypothesis you make and lets debate on it....you are not yet an authority...whatever argument you make using your own hypothesis is an assumption...i have never claim to know...i brought existing evidence that has been certified in my argument and not my opinion....

Okay, I only brought my hypothesis to the fore because I have tremendous respect for the questions you raise. I thought your questions would expose the weaknesses in my hypothesis, which is what I want at the moment. Please consider reading it and giving me your thoughts.

2 am a lover of art and science....so am not a novice of evolution theory...and i dont think i sound like a novice when expressing my veiws

Fantastic...makes the both of us! But I don't love all art! I draw a big fat abstract line at abstract art.

3 i appreciate your response...i learn one or two from you.....

I've also learned from you

My own advice. ....as an eeducationst.....there is nothing like absolute true.. I study both creationist and evolutionist claim....i see where they both stand and both praticallly make sense...

There is nothing bad in learning from both sides....

I agree!

AgentOfAllah:

I'm pleased to hear that.


Okay, I only brought my hypothesis to the fore because I have tremendous respect for the questions you raise. I thought your questions would expose the weaknesses in my hypothesis, which is what I want at the moment. Please consider reading it and giving me your thoughts.


Fantastic...makes the both of us! But I don't love all art! I draw a big fat abstract line at abstract art.



I've also learned from you



I agree!

I will try and pay attention on the hypothesis only for academic purpose only......

You are cool and smart dude , how I wish you are religious..... At least a pagan .... Art world is big ....you can try literature

AgentOfAllah:


I am presently working on a hypothesis of mine: We tend to look at consciousness as an expression of the self, a unitary entity. I propose that the self does not exist in the way that we think of it. Instead, the self is the convoluted result of the individual selfish tendencies of our many bodily organs which then become interdependent to guarantee each of their survival. Our organs don't always agree with each other though, so this explains why "we sometimes are in conflict with ourselves". It's why sometimes you feel ice cream is the meaning of life, and why at other times, you feel like puking when you see it. The self, and by extension, consciousness, isn't a unitary entity, but a gallimaufry of organs that are mostly interdependent, but sometimes also in conflict. This hypothesis is still work in progress, but I am very excited about it because it is a problem which can be falsified neuroscientifically. It may end up being stupid, but I intend to pursue it as my personal academic project when I'm done with my present projects. I can't promise I will be able to answer all your questions, but I think your questions will help guide the way I try to address this topic, so please ask!


.

it is the brain that send signal to every part of our ogarn...for example it is the brain that let our body knows we are full, it is the same brain that still make our body call for more. Food...this why people still force themselves to eat even after satisfaction.....

If that is the case our organ can not independently be selfish without the signals of the brain....whatever is the cause must be as a result of brain preferences.....

With your hypothesis.... Are you suggesting our orgarns can act independently without receiving signals from the brain?

vaxx:
so I can accept Hollywood science fictional movies as a replacement of the truth...

no men it ain't a Hollywood movie it's a documentary. Thinking about God's creation is a disrespectful to his greatness. The greatness of God is beyond the human mind. The devil's are the one's that whisper that to you since they have noticed that your are not searching from the correct sources but scientific facts, you can only discover Allah's greatness by reading the Holy book if you can read the old testament, New testament and last testament (Qur'an) there's no way you won't believe in God's but to save your time you read the Qur'an first and start reading from 1-114. I promise you won't be disappointed.

whatch this video for start


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-jOSXJZA-A

vaxx:
I will try and pay attention on the hypothesis only for academic purpose only......

You are cool and smart dude , how I wish you are religious..... At least a pagan .... Art world is big ....you can try literature

If I were forced to pick a religion, it would most probably be paganism. It is the most consistent with my worldview...as far as freedom of conscience goes!

Yes, literature is the type of art I like!

Thanks for assessing my hypothesis!

vaxx:
it is the brain that send signal to every part of our ogarn...for example it is the brain that let our body knows we are full, it is the same brain that still make our body call for more. Food...this why people still force themselves to eat even after satisfaction.....

If that is the case our organ can not independently be selfish without the signals of the brain....whatever is the cause must be as a result of brain preferences.....

Here, you are partially correct! Yes, the brain communicates with the rest of our organs through our nervous system. But the rest of our organs also communicate with the brain by the same means. So the communication is both ways. Food is a great example! Usually, when we eat we feel full, right? But the reason we feel full isn't because our brains tell us it's enough. Rather, it's because our guts release certain hormones that then communicate with our hypothalamus, which then fires appetite inhibiting neurons. So, in a sense, our guts just manipulated the brain into rejecting food. Things even get weirder when you consider that our guts can also be manipulated by resident bacteria to release relevant hormones to make us feel hungry, even if there's no need for food. The question then is, who is 'us'? Our guts? our brains? the bacteria that manipulate our guts? I don't think it's one or the other. It's probably all of the above! It may be that you crave ice cream because certain bacteria in you wants milk and sugar. Which should lead us to question the very habits that define 'us'. This, is the crux of my hypothesis. Maybe our consciousness is just an aggregate of these cooperating and sometimes, competing organs.

With your hypothesis.... Are you suggesting our orgarns can act independently without receiving signals from the brain....

Most living things act independently of brains. Why not our organs? Maybe the brain is like the internet of our organs. It allows them to communicate and cooperate for the good of each of their survival? We've also witnessed situations where people reject parts of their bodies (Body Integrity Identity Disorder), vowing it doesn't belong to them. Could this be a kind of breakdown in communication and/or undesirable terms of cooperation between two or more of the organs?

vaxx:
The purpose of this questions is to raised the best explanation to who create God..... best explanation can't be explain.... if scientists deem it fit that the evolution theory is conclusive....
they also need to acknowledged it when religion folks says there is no any further explanation as to who create God..... it is conclusive.....

God created Time. There is no before or after with God because He exists outside of Time.