₦airaland Forum

Everyday247:
All these can be explained by evolution

Dont just say it. Explain how. Teach me. I am ready to learn.

plaetton:
The enigma of the pyramids is where there is various shades of opinion.
Whilest everyone is entitled to an opinion, opinion based on evidence would always be a superior opinion.
For example, if humans built the pyramids, what can we look for to substantiate that ?
Can we scientifically pinpoint when exactly they were built? Were there available tools, workforce, food, mathematical and engineering know-how at such a period ?

If superior technological knowledge built the pyramids, then what clues should we be looking for ? Do we find such clues ?

These are the basis upon which one can put out a rational opinion on that enigma.

Again I'm not talking about facts.

You earlier said that people can't subscribe or unsubscribe to scientific theories because they are facts.

My point is that to "subscribe" meant to "agree" with as opposed to that your reply.

plaetton:
I agree to some extent.

But Intelligent Design is not a scientific alternative to TOE. It is not based on any testable science.
Is is just wishful thinking by people who cannot accept the absence of a Creator or designer in the scientific Theory Of Evolution.

There are many things in nature which disclose clear design save to the willfully blind.

Everyday247:
It's not about what's true or false. It's about opinions.

Eg. Take the question: did aliens build the pyramids?
Some believe so while other do not.

We can also say that some subscribe to the idea while others do not.

He is playing around with the word "subscribe." Think nothing of it and waste not time upon frivolity.

plaetton:
The enigma of the pyramids is where there is various shades of opinion.
Whilest everyone is entitled to an opinion, opinion based on evidence would always be a superior opinion.
For example, if humans built the pyramids, what can we look for to substantiate that ?
Can we scientifically pinpoint when exactly they were built? Were there available tools, workforce, food, mathematical and engineering know-how at such a period ?

If superior technological knowledge built the pyramids, then what clues should we be looking for ? Do we find such clues ?

These are the basis upon which one can put out a rational opinion on that enigma.

Its possibly done by a civilization that was obliterated before this current civilization arose.

DeepSight:
A valid question and while I cannot account for it, it stands to reason to me that there exists an ultimate source of all things, and that is what I personally call God. It is not the Abrahamic version of God, it is not a person as understood in the anthropomorphic sense either. It is a transcendantal and ineffable element.

This sounds like wishful thinking not based on any law of physics.

There are actually things in nature the complexity and specificity of which actually logically presuppose design. Its not a question of a God of the gaps argument - rather the question should rebound to those who claim that certain evidently designed things were not designed. There is an age old analogy about this, but I dont want to cite it. It has to do with a watch or a clock. Suffice to say that if you investigate the workings of a single cell within your body, not to speak of the staggering workings of the human brain - which far exceed the workings of the most complex computers, you will find that it is rational to presuposse that there is evidence of design in these things. You will find that it is that person who claims that there is no element of design who really has questions to answer.

If something is designed in nature, how did you know that It was designed?

And what are these things that look designed?

Questioning evident gaps in the Theory of Evolution does not mean one does not understand it.
Observing evidence of design in nature also does not mean that one does not understand evolution.

I actualy believe in evolution but I dont believe it's all that accounts for life as we know it. In my view, it works side by side with many obvious elements of programming and design.

First of all you posted intelligent design links, many of which discredited evolution by referring to evolutionists as Darwinists and calling evolution a myth.

Also tell me how you think evolution works

DeepSight:
To be clear I believe in evolution. However it has its limitations and not everything in nature can be explained by it. I firmly believe - nay, I know, that sexual reproduction cannot be explained by evolution.

Many instincts can be explained not just by evolution but even just by stimuli and reaction to stimuli. However there are many instinctive behavioural partterns which are either difficult or impossible to explain with evolution.

There's your problem right there, you claim that you understand how evolution works, but you can't use natural selection to explain this?

If you understood natural selection this would be a no brainer for you.

I ask again do you know how natural selection works?
If Yes, please explain how it works.

DeepSight:
A valid question and while I cannot account for it, it stands to reason to me that there exists an ultimate source of all things, and that is what I personally call God. It is not the Abrahamic version of God, it is not a person as understood in the anthropomorphic sense either. It is a transcendantal and ineffable element.



There are actually things in nature the complexity and specificity of which actually logically presuppose design. Its not a question of a God of the gaps argument - rather the question should rebound to those who claim that certain evidently designed things were not designed. There is an age old analogy about this, but I dont want to cite it. It has to do with a watch or a clock. Suffice to say that if you investigate the workings of a single cell within your body, not to speak of the staggering workings of the human brain - which far exceed the workings of the most complex computers, you will find that it is rational to presuposse that there is evidence of design in these things. You will find that it is that person who claims that there is no element of design who really has questions to answer.



Questioning evident gaps in the Theory of Evolution does not mean one does not understand it.
Observing evidence of design in nature also does not mean that one does not understand evolution.

I actualy believe in evolution but I dont believe it's all that accounts for life as we know it. In my view, it works side by side with many obvious elements of programming and design.

I cited the beauty and symmetric complexity of Snowflakes earlier on this thread.

Do you believe or are inclined to believe that snow flakes are intelligently designed?
Even you believe they are, the answer is they are not .
Snowflakes are formed by random atmospheric flux. No two flakes are ever the same. That should scream ' INTELLIGENT DESIGN '. But it's not.
The fact that no 2 Snowflakes are ever the same tells that there are no 2 identical atmospheric conditions ever. The atmosphere is in a never ending flux. Similarly, the entire universe, on much grander scale, is in an eternal flux of particles, atoms, subatomic particles, innumerable types of cosmic and electromagnetic radiation.

If our localized atmosphere in the northern hemisphere can be producing unique, beautiful, geometrically and symmetrically perfect Snowflakes in a twinkle of an eye under certain atmospheric thresholds , then it should blow our minds what the entirety of the universe can Similarly produce in 14 billion years and counting.

Everyday247:
This sounds like wishful thinking not based on any law of physics.

There are things in reality that transcend physics and are discerned more by advanced philosophy at the level of logic and by astral exposure at the level of the spiritual. But since we are at the level of logic here, let us leave the spiritual and only utilize philosophical arguments.

In this I will be brief, but can expand on it if you wish.

You pointed out the problem of an infinite regress. Absorb the following -

1. Something cannot come from nothing
2. Since something exists, then it came from something prior
3. Nothingness does not exist
4. Therefore somethngness always existed
5. Therefore we can infer the existence of a permanent and self existent something.

What could be that permanent and self-existent something?

We can start with elements of it - such as eternal time (eternity) and infinite space (infinty).

If something is designed in nature, how did you know that It was designed?

Evident fitness for purpose. When a complex system is so intricately set up as to render far too improbable or even impossible the thought that it had no element of mind behind it, and when it then is so set up as to be evidently fit for specific purpose, this strongly suggests design to every rational person.

One thing we need to do is to get rid of the idea that the very notion of design is somehow taboo.

And what are these things that look designed?

Start with your brain.

Also tell me how you think evolution works

By natural selection.

DeepSight:
Its possibly done by a civilization that was obliterated before this current civilization arose.

I hold that opinion too.

If our Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and organic life is several million years old, it is not out of place to suppose that a much more advanced civilization once inhabited the earth or at least visited.
A lot of evidence points in that direction.

plaetton:
I cited the beauty and symmetric complexity of Snowflakes earlier on this thread.

Do you believe or are inclined to believe that snow flakes are intelligently designed?
Even you believe they are, the answer is they are not .
Snowflakes are formed by random atmospheric flux. No two flakes are ever the same. That should scream ' INTELLIGENT DESIGN '. But it's not.
The fact that no 2 Snowflakes are ever the same tells that there are no 2 identical atmospheric conditions ever. The atmosphere is in a never ending flux. Similarly, the entire universe, on much grander scale, is in an eternal flux of particles, atoms, subatomic particles, innumerable types of cosmic and electromagnetic radiation.

If our localized atmosphere in the northern hemisphere can be producing unique, beautiful, geometrically and symmetrically perfect Snowflakes in a twinkle of an eye under certain atmospheric thresholds , then it should blow our minds what the entirety of the universe can Similarly produce in 14 billion years and counting.

I already told you that the question you should be wondering about is if the physical laws that make such occur are random.

Everyday247:
Again I'm not talking about facts.

You earlier said that people can't subscribe or unsubscribe to scientific theories because they are facts.

My point is that to "subscribe" meant to "agree" with as opposed to that your reply.

I never referred to scientific theories as facts.
They are the accepted scientific understanding , often incomplete, of natural phenomena.

DeepSight:
I already told you that the question you should be wondering about is if the physical laws that make such occur are random.

The laws of nature are immutable.

plaetton:
I hold that opinion too.

If our Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and organic life is several million years old, it is not out of place to suppose that a much more advanced civilization once inhabited the earth or at least visited.
A lot of evidence points in that direction.

One hundred percent agree.
As you said, there is in fact evidence of it all over the place.

And the way this world is, this present civilization will doubtless be swept away in some natural apocalypse one day as well. Succeeding civilizations will likely still arise and wonder what on earth the remnants of skyscrapers were and how they were built.

plaetton:
The laws of nature are immutable.

I agree. How does that take away from what I am saying.

Everyday247:
There's your problem right there, you claim that you understand how evolution works, but you can't use natural selection to explain this?

If you understood natural selection this would be a no brainer for you.

Natural selection does not explain many instinctive behavioural patterns. Can you tell me how it explains the homing bahaviour of salmon for example?

I ask again do you know how natural selection works?
If Yes, please explain how it works.

In one line, organisms with traits or mutations that favour survival get to survive more preponderantly and pass down their genes, while organisms without such traits or mutations tend not to survive.

DeepSight:
There are things in reality that transcend physics and are discerned more by advanced philosophy at the level of logic and by astral exposure at the level of the spiritual. But since we are at the level of logic here, let us leave the spiritual and only utilize philosophical arguments.

What are the things that transcends physics?
And how did you know about these things that transcends physics?

In this I will be brief, but can expand on it if you wish.

You pointed out the problem of an infinite regress. Absorb the following -

1. Something cannot come from nothing

How did you know that something cannot come from nothing?

2. Since something exists, then it came from something prior

how did you know that something can only come from something?
What about the concept of eternity?
Doesn't it violate this claim?

3. Nothingness does not exist

how did you know that nothingness does not exist?

4. Therefore somethngness always existed

How did you know something always existed?

5. Therefore we can infer the existence of a permanent and self existent something.

When you say "infer", what method are we using to infer?
I hope it's not armchair speculation?

What could be that permanent and self-existent something?

We haven't inferred anything yet, this is a logical leap.

We can start with elements of it - such as eternal time (eternity) and infinite space (infinty).

Does eternal time exist?
How did you discover eternal time?
Does infinite space exist?
How did you know about the existence of infinite space?

Evident fitness for purpose. When a complex system is so intricately set up as to render far too improbable or even impossible the thought that it had no element of mind behind it, and when it then is so set up as to be evidently fit for specific purpose, this strongly suggests design to every rational person.

What are those things complex things?

Also this is essentially the god of gaps argument. There are things that you don't currently understand about the universe, instead of doing more research to find out how they work, you just throw your hands up and say "it must be intelligent designers". it's funny how you never considered how very complex intelligent designers came about.

One thing we need to do is to get rid of the idea that the very notion of design is somehow taboo.

The concept of intelligent design contradicts itself.
It's States that the world is too complex to exist naturally, and then invokes intelligent designers who themselves are also too complex to exist naturally.

Start with your brain.

So what you're saying is that because you don't understand how brains evolved, therefore god?

That sounds like the god of gaps argument.

By natural selection.

We are already discussing this on another quote.

plaetton:
I never referred to scientific theories as facts.
They are the accepted scientific understanding , often incomplete, of natural phenomena.

ok

DeepSight:
In one line, organisms with traits or mutations that favour survival get to survive more preponderantly and pass down their genes, while organisms without such traits or mutations tend not to survive.

This is not very accurate, but I can work with it

Natural selection does not explain many instinctive behavioural patterns. Can you tell me how it explains the homing bahaviour of salmon for example?

If there's an advantage to salmon homing behaviour then natural selection will favour it.
I don't know anything about salmon, so I can't use it as an example.

Instead I'll use that pups that instinctively know how to suckle example.
Let's say a wolf in the wild gives birth to two pups. And one in born with a mutational instinct to suckle and the other is born without the suckle mutation. The one born with the instinct will be able to get nutrition from its mother's milk to survive while the other without the suckle mutational instinct will not get nutrition because it doesn't know how to suckle and then die. The surviving pup will grow up and pass on the suckle gene. While the dead pup will not be able to pass on it's disadvantaged or harmful gene.

This is called natural selection. You could say that the suckle gene was favored by natural selection while the non suckle gene was weeded out. Hence future pups will be born with the suckle gene that was passed on by the surviving pup.

Everyday247:
What are the things that transcends physics?
And how did you know about these things that transcends physics?

How did you know that something cannot come from nothing?
how did you know that something can only come from something?
What about the concept of eternity?
Doesn't it violate this claim?
how did you know that nothingness does not exist?
How did you know something always existed?
When you say "infer", what method are we using to infer?
I hope it's not armchair speculation?

We haven't inferred anything yet, this is a logical leap.

Does eternal time exist?
How did you discover eternal time?
Does infinite space exist?
How did you know about the existence of infinite space?

What are those things complex things?

Also this is essentially the god of gaps argument. There are things that you don't currently understand about the universe, instead of doing more research to find out how they work, you just throw your hands up and say "it must be intelligent designers". it's funny how you never considered how very complex intelligent designers came about.

The concept of intelligent design contradicts itself.
It's States that the world is too complex to exist naturally, and then invokes intelligent designers who themselves are also too complex to exist naturally.

So what you're saying is that because you don't understand how brains evolved, therefore god?

That sounds like the god of gaps argument.

We are already discussing this on another quote.

The nature of your your queries on every line is such that I may have to pass. Particularly the fact that you query why one says something cannot come from nothing leads me to believe that engaging you might be frustrating and pointless. Unless you can provide a strong reason for such a query I will have to leave it at this. I however thank you for your time. Good evening.

plaetton:
Let me say this for better understanding.

For my friend DeepSight to question or proclaim the inexplicable instincts, he first has obligation to take a deep dive into the subject of protein synthesis, understand it, and then be able to say that the body of accumulated knowledge in protein synthesis and its fundamental link to natural selection and evolution is wrong and incomplete.
You question science with science.

The bolded is incorrect. It's similar to the usual excuse used by incompetent teachers to dissuade their students from questioning them about a topic they can't explain very well. Religious people also use the same tactics when they say one must have the holy spirit to understand biblical text


There's no where it's stated in the sciences that " You question science with science. You just invented that yourself.

What it takes to question science is an inquiry mind and the ability to ask the right question concerning any scientific theory that one find inconsistent with the evidences that support it.

The Wright brothers were ordinary bicycle repairers who aren't supposed to question science according you, but through their project to invent something new, they question the prevailing scientific theory of their time which stated that nothing heavier than air can float in the sky ,and the result was the airplane.

Well, you already answered the op without realising it. You can't explain it and so waiting for other scientist who know better to come up with an answer so you can re-echo it.

DeepSight:
The nature of your your queries on every line is such that I may have to pass. Particularly the fact that you query why one says something cannot come from nothing leads me to believe that engaging you might be frustrating and pointless. Unless you can provide a strong reason for such a query I will have to leave it at this. I however thank you for your time. Good evening.

You made claims and assumptions about the nature of the universe when the best cosmologists and astronomers and scientists do not know.

Everyday247:
You made claims and assumptions about the nature of the universe when the best cosmologists and astronomers and scientists do not know.

I don't think it's an unfounded claim to say that something cannot come from nothing. Your querying that in particular is what makes me think any discussion will be futile. As I said, unless you provide a strong reason for that query.

DeepSight:
I don't think it's an unfounded claim to say that something cannot come from nothing. Your querying that in particular is what makes me think any discussion will be futile. As I said, unless you provide a strong reason for that query.

It's a claim not backed by any evidence.
What if someone claimed that the opposite of your claims were true. How would we determine who was right between you and them?

If someone makes claims about unknowns, are we not allowed to verify the authenticity of the claims?

Everyday247:
It's a claim not backed by any evidence.
What if someone claimed that the opposite of your claims were true. How would we determine who was right between you and them?

If someone makes claims about unknowns, are we not allowed to verify the authenticity of the claims?

No problem. I beg to pass. Good evening.

triplechoice:
The bolded is incorrect. It's similar to the usual excuse used by incompetent teachers to dissuade their students from questioning them about a topic they can't explain very well. Religious people also use the same tactics when they say one must have the holy spirit to understand biblical text
There's no where it's stated in the sciences that " You question science with science. You just invented that yourself.
What it takes to question science is an inquiry mind and the ability to ask the right question concerning any scientific theory that one find inconsistent with the evidences that support it.
The Wright brothers were ordinary bicycle repairers who aren't supposed to question science according you, but through their project to invent something new, they question the prevailing scientific theory of their time which stated that nothing heavier than air can float in the sky ,and the result was the airplane.
Well, you already answered the op without realising it. You can't explain it and so waiting for other scientist who know better to come up with an answer so you can re-echo it.

What did the wright brothers use to disprove science?
Is it not science?

Do you think science is like religion were a prophets hear prophecies from infallible deities?

Science relies on repetition also known as peer to peer review to confirm something.

Only faculty scientific experiments give you faulty answers.

A few years ago, scientists updated the age of the universe from 7 billion to 13.8 billion after observations were made with the then new James Webb telescope. Was science wrong about the universe or was it flawed observations caused by the weaker Hubble telescope?

So apart from science, what else can use to disprove science?

plaetton:
I agree to some extent.

But Intelligent Design is not a scientific alternative to TOE. It is not based on any testable science.
Is is just wishful thinking by people who cannot accept the absence of a Creator or designer in the scientific Theory Of Evolution.

I disagree with this. Intelligent design isn't wishful thinking as you think. The way I see it, it's an explanation put forward by those who can't provide rational explanation for how nearly everything in the universe seem to be working in perfect order. They know it by intuition but can't explain it rationally.

What intelligent designer's are saying is that random chance couldn't have been the cause. Maybe something, another form of energy yet unseen working at the background to set the blueprint for how everything should evolve in perfect order. This unknown something, energy, shouldn't be mistaken for an invisible deity in an invisible plane needing our worship.

The ancients ,who founded some of the world's major religion , made use of stories to encode or hide certain truth about our world These truths were perceived intuitively during their time.

Some of the truth they discovered still find relevance till this day. But when you focus on my stories or whether religious god's exist , you also miss it just like nowadays religious people.

For instance, modern science says everything contains energy while the ancients personified it by saying God is in all things. Energy is not created nor destroyed. God is also not created nor destroyed.

So, the same truth as before but expressed differently by both religion and science.

Everyday247:
What did the wright brothers use to disprove science?
Is it not science?

Do you think science is like religion were a prophets hear prophecies from infallible deities?

Science relies on repetition also known as peer to peer review to confirm something.

Only faculty scientific experiments give you faulty answers.

A few years ago, scientists updated the age of the universe from 7 billion to 13.8 billion after observations were made with the then new James Webb telescope. Was science wrong about the universe or was it flawed observations caused by the weaker Hubble telescope?

So apart from science, what else can use to disprove science?

You didn't get it. They used science to dispute science, but from the way you sounded , it's certain if you lived during their time you would have also joined other scientist to mock their first attempt to fly as foolish and impossible since their invention was going to run contrary to established scientific fact as at that period.

You looking for excuse and just want to argue that only trained scientist can debate and question scientific theories while the others wait to be spoon-fed.

I'm sure you think you know more than top scientist from different parts of the world who have consistently adviced people consulting with medical personnel to always ask question about the kind of treatment they are getting so they know better. Have they said if one isn't a scientist one can't question a medical doctor who's trained scientist?

Answer me, Mr "you can only question science with science."

triplechoice:
You didn't get it. They used science to dispute science, but from the way you sounded , it's certain if you lived during their time you would have also joined other scientist to mock their first attempt to fly as foolish and impossible since their invention was going to run contrary to established scientific fact as at that period.

You looking for excuse and just want to argue that only trained scientist can debate and question scientific theories while the others wait to be spoon-fed.

I'm sure you think you know more than top scientist from different parts of the world who have consistently adviced people consulting with medical personnel to always ask question about the kind of treatment they are getting so they know better. Have they said if one isn't a scientist one can't question a medical doctor who's trained scientist?

Answer me, Mr "you can only question science with science."

Yes you can ask questions in science. Did you think science is a religion?

How was the so called scientific fact established during that period?

No wonder that you are arguing like this. You seem to believe that science is just another religion. Science doesn't work like religion. In science there are no infallible prophets or deities. The validity of any scientific fact is based on scientific evidence not declarations by so called authorities like Einstein, Newton etc

If Albert Einstein makes a scientific claim, you are supposed to verify his claims using science and not take his word for it. It's only in religion that you don't question what you are told.

If you question a scientist and they give you an answer, what will you use to verify the answer?

How did that guy know about "beyond the universe?"

triplechoice:
The bolded is incorrect. It's similar to the usual excuse used by incompetent teachers to dissuade their students from questioning them about a topic they can't explain very well. Religious people also use the same tactics when they say one must have the holy spirit to understand biblical text


There's no where it's stated in the sciences that " You question science with science. You just invented that yourself.

What it takes to question science is an inquiry mind and the ability to ask the right question concerning any scientific theory that one find inconsistent with the evidences that support it.

The Wright brothers were ordinary bicycle repairers who aren't supposed to question science according you, but through their project to invent something new, they question the prevailing scientific theory of their time which stated that nothing heavier than air can float in the sky ,and the result was the airplane.

Well, you already answered the op without realising it. You can't explain it and so waiting for other scientist who know better to come up with an answer so you can re-echo it.

Lol.
Imagine the false twist to the Wright Brothers story.
In fact the story of the Wright Brothers vindicates my position.
The Wright Brothers did not attach feathers to their backs to defying conventional understanding of physics.
Rather, they scientifically ( yes, scientifically) demonstrated in the most practical way how the laws of aerodynamics acts upon objects in the air.

plaetton:
Lol.
Imagine the false twist to the Wright Brothers story.
In fact the story of the Wright Brothers vindicates my position.
The Wright Brothers did not attach feathers to their backs to defying conventional understanding of physics.
Rather, they scientifically ( yes, scientifically) demonstrated in the most practical way how the laws of aerodynamics acts upon objects in the air.

The dude's lowkey trying to gently force intelligent design into science through the back door.

plaetton:
Lol.
Imagine the false twist to the Wright Brothers story.
In fact the story of the Wright Brothers vindicates my position.
The Wright Brothers did not attach feathers to their backs to defying conventional understanding of physics.
Rather, they scientifically ( yes, scientifically) demonstrated in the most practical way how the laws of aerodynamics acts upon objects in the air.

You still don't get it . As at the time the Wright brothers we're perfecting their craft it was regarded as not science, not scientific , by those within the scientific community. Go back to read history and come back and tell what I just said isn't true.

You don't take your time to read before replying.