The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[Bonky]

a poor dodge and evade...

It's true, ask a room of people to write down what a "soul" is. Read the answers and see if you can get two that look alike.

P.S. For extra credit, I'd have them also write down the evidence for that which they tried describing. When you see their panic'd eyes dart around unsure what to write you'll see what I see.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Bonky

[Jean74]

God created the human body, not evolution. Will leave it at that!

[Enoch2021]

 

Lewontin :

 

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,

 

in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life,

 

in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,

 

because we have a prior commitment,

 

a commitment to materialism.

 

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world,

 

but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes

 

to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that

 

produce material explanations,

 

no matter how counter-intuitive,

 

no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

 

Moreover, that materialism is an absolute,

 

for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

 

Talk about a loaded dice  .. "to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations"

 

Hmmm.

 To look at everything that exists, that is the material, physical, energetic state of all the universe, which is space-time and its parts and facets; energy and motion; gravity and forces; is inherently to look at all the "stuff" of our existence. Throughout that study, we glean evidence from physical and natural conditions and bases, then form systems and conclusions based on that evidence.

 

You can't create logical systems from illogical premises. We look at the chemicals and forces and phenomena that make up our universe and we deduce from them logical conclusions and systems that work. And a system's "workability" is proof of its validity. One plus one equals two; E=MC2; gravity causes masses of things to be drawn towards objects of larger mass; genes precede physical characteristics. None of it requires anything other than itself; it does not require something supernatural and in fact we have no evidence of anything such. Supernatural notions are superfluous to existence in any purely logical paradigm of thought. Supernaturalism is surplus. There's absolutely no evidence for the supernatural at all.

 

Your problem is that logic is not sufficient for you. You look at the raindrops and you ask what existential purpose they have, whereas I look at the raindrops and know that the antecedent factors that led to their becoming are as far as reason will actually take me. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. "What existential meaning has it in a world created just for me" is a reprehensibly silly question. It is like asking "what emotion is a cloud?"

 

The issue, really, is that the universe, from all logical deduction, is utterly indifferent to both you and I, and that scares you. Surely, I know more than most that self-realization is a cruel price to pay for an upper hand over the apes, but here is my thought on this: If the universe is oblivious to me, which it is, then it has never offered me existential purpose. Never has, and it never will. And that makes it all the more important that I forge my own purpose from it. If I concede that I mean nothing to the universe, then the people on this planet become everything to me.

 

You say that we, atheists, evolutionary scientists, have a prior commitment to materialism. We're immoral little creatures and surely I imagine that you think you are the moral cure. No, that is not true. What is true is this: Every single "thing" that we observe, see and deduce from, is a "thing" in a material sense. It is impossible for any observable, deductable thing to be immaterial. How can you deduce something from a thing that is not? Everything that IS, IS. And "materialism" in a scientific sense is just that.

 

I have from logic, forged a reasonable motivation to help this planet, a reason for compassion. How can that be? It is because, in the end, your purpose is not cosmic, nor is it from some exterior force, nor is mine. It is self-driven and self--determined just as all of our's are.

 

Your horse neighs and if I could speak horse I'm sure it would be saying "I am not as tall a horse as you think I am. Unsaddle me".

 

 

 

 

=======================================================================================================================

 

 

To be somewhat brief, I'll just take this to the Woodshed...

 

genes precede physical characteristics. None of it requires anything other than itself; it does not require something supernatural and in fact we have no evidence of anything such.

 

 

 

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life.  Ya see....

 

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.

http://TBioMed | Full text | Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information) ...

 

"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

 

Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:

 

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

 

Null hypothesis #1

Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

 

Null hypothesis #2

Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

 

Null hypothesis #3

Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

 

Null hypothesis #4

Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

 

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."

 

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?

 

 

hope it helps

[BoddhiBody]

 

 

CUT

CUT

 

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?

 

 

hope it helps

 

This is, for want of a better word, crap.

 

You're ascribing layers of superficial, faulty analogous meaning to complicate or manipulate something to a point beyond what it is. Genes are not ''software'', nor are they bound by the rules of computer code. You've no idea what your'e talking about and nor does anybody who spouts this nonsense. Read some real scientific papers, written by a vast majority of worldwide qualified scientists who, funnily enough, have provided and continue to provide overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection.

Edited April 24, 2015 by BoddhiBody

[Ezra]

Read some real scientific papers, written by a vast majority of worldwide qualified scientists who, funnily enough, have provided and continue to provide overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection.

 

This must have been a terrible waste of time.  Even Darwin was not fully convinced about his own ideas.

To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

[BoddhiBody]

This must have been a terrible waste of time. Even Darwin was not fully convinced about his own ideas.

To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

You forgot to read the rest:

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of vox populi, vox dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory - Darwin

Edited April 25, 2015 by BoddhiBody

[Guest]

 

Define Supernatural, please?

 

Beyond the laws of nature; outside existence.

 

"supernatural" is the biggest, fattest, silliest oxymoron in the English dictionary.

 

~

 

Beyond The Laws Of Creation: Outside Of Observation, Measurement And Reproduction

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

 

"Evolution" Swoops Down As The Second Biggest, Silliest Oxymoron In The English Language

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

Whereas "Mother Nature", Found Squatting Upon "Scientific" Minds

 

For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. 1 Chronicles 16:26

 

Reigns Supreme As The First Oxymoron

 

No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? 1 Corinthians 10:20-22 (ESV)

[Guest Thallasa]

This is true as well . I am  sure there is error in scientific calculations ,in part making it so large that it would give time to 'evolve'

as it were . Human beings often need to be entirely right in whatever world view they choose to believe in ,and will furnish 'proof ,until the truth comes eventually (,when God decides it is the 'time)'.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

CUT

CUT

 

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?

 

 

hope it helps

 

This is, for want of a better word, crap.

 

You're ascribing layers of superficial, faulty analogous meaning to complicate or manipulate something to a point beyond what it is. Genes are not ''software'', nor are they bound by the rules of computer code. You've no idea what your'e talking about and nor does anybody who spouts this nonsense. Read some real scientific papers, written by a vast majority of worldwide qualified scientists who, funnily enough, have provided and continue to provide overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection.

 

 

 

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

This is, for want of a better word, crap.

 

 

A well thought out and measured response; detail oriented.

 

 

....faulty analogous meaning to complicate or manipulate something to a point beyond what it is. Genes are not ''software''....

 

 

 

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.

So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES."

Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

 

"Actually" and "Literally" are the Antithesis of Analogy.

 

 

“DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.” {Emphasis Mine}

Paul Davies PhD Physics 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk

 

 

"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine}

Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html

 

 

Arguably the world's foremost expert on Software...

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any SOFTWARE ever CREATED.” ----Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

 

 

And to support your Thesis (Baseless Assertion Fallacy) that DNA is "not" Software, you forgot to answer this...

 

Please tell us HOW on Earth does:

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.

CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine

UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!    

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

 

 

nor are they bound by the rules of computer code

 

 

Didn't I say....

 

....."(We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain...."

 

Please read my post again....a bit more carefully.

 

 

who, funnily enough, have provided and continue to provide overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection.

 

 

1. evolution isn't "science"....

 

the theory of evolution is neither "Scientific" or a "theory"; as evidenced by....

 

 

"The SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant A THEORY is, ITS PREDICTIONS MUST AGREE WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical PREDICTIONS is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. THEORIES THAT CANNOT BE TESTED, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), DO NOT QUALIFY AS SCIENTIFIC THEORIES." {Emphasis Mine}

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

 

This is Fog a Mirror: the Tenets of, and Exactly what "Actual Real Science" is and does. Lets take a Look @ what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist---Stephen Jay Gould).......

 

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. (evolutionist)....

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

 

 

Professor Mayr: "Evolutionary biology, IN CONTRAST with physics and chemistry".

 

If there was no difference in methodology, there would be no..."IN CONTRAST" with Two Empirical Sciences.

 

Professor Mayr: "the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place".

 

Hmm, How can you Observe a Phenomenon if the event has already taken place without a Time Machine? That also means that it is Impossible to formulate a "Valid" HYPOTHESIS.

 

Professor Mayr: "Laws and EXPERIMENTS are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes."

 

Uhh ohh. Isn't the MOST CRITICAL STEP of The Scientific Method....EXPERIMENT? To ahh, VALIDATE the Hypothesis, maybe?

 

Say Goodbye to: Step 1 Observe a Phenomenon, Step 3 Hypothesis , Step 4 (Experiment).

 

 

And then of course there's this,  Echoing Professor Mayr above...

 

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".

Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

 

How in the world are you gonna form a "Valid" Hypothesis if you can make ZERO predictions?

 

By the Way, the fine Professor's Truthful Statement is the Classic Foundation for: Begging The Question (Fallacy) and "Just So" Stories

 

So as outlined, evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory" and is "False"- Science (Pseudo-Science).

 

 

2. Natural Selection:

 

"Natural Selection" is Immaterial...it's a "Concept".  Saying Natural Selection... a "Concept" is responsible; is Tantamount to....

 

The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.

"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.

The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.

 

 

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....

 

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."

Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

 

 

 

a vast majority of worldwide qualified scientists

 

 

Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy)--- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

 

and an implied...

 

No True Scotsman (Fallacy) --- by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

 

PROTIP: Fallacies....are Fallacious

 

 

Do you know what evolution is?

 

Is Peppered Moths an example of evolution?

 

 

regards

[MorningGlory]

It IS a  divine plan.  Why would God create a universe and then just let it run itself?  Makes no sense.