Total Posts:229|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Issues with Evolution

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 9:58:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
We have had a lot of trolling from Jharry and Ren recently, but the fact remains this is a fascinating subject and some people may have genuine questions and issues with evolution.

If that includes you, then please post them in a clear and concise manner so that someone can attempt to address the issue. But please first make a cursory attempt, even if it's just to look at wikipedia, to learn what the basics of evolution are.

And please lets see how long we can go without the insults and trolling.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 10:13:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Macro evolution has never been demonstrated.. and there is no evidence for it...

show me a fossil of an egg laying beaver-duck-otter!

http://www.google.com...
oh wait... there are such things!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 10:23:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 10:33:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Although i do believe in the theory of evolution and natural selection there are certain areas that seem to be yet explained to my satisfaction. There is the problem of "irreducibly complex system". Darwin pretty much said that evolution had to happen in tiny slow steps, no sudden leaps in fact he conceded that if any organ could be shown that is sufficiently complex or "irreducibly complex" composed of multiple parts, where each is dependent on the other for its function then his theory would have a problem (not his exact words). Now with this i have a problem with sight. It seems to me that sight, even in the most basic recognition of light falls into that category. There seems to be some sort of either spontaneous jump of physiology, which Darwin says isn't what happens, or a plan mapped out, which i don't think he believed either.

I am guessing that proponents of evolution will explain that sight is not such leap, but i still cannot be convinced that either there are certain basic physiological leaps or an evolutionary map.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 10:51:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 10:33:06 AM, innomen wrote:
I am guessing that proponents of evolution will explain that sight is not such leap, but i still cannot be convinced that either there are certain basic physiological leaps or an evolutionary map.

waiting on puck to explain the slow, boring, and painstaking process in which eyeballs supposedly came about

8l
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:05:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 10:33:06 AM, innomen wrote:
I am guessing that proponents of evolution will explain that sight is not such leap, but i still cannot be convinced that either there are certain basic physiological leaps or an evolutionary map.

sight is crazy complicated...

It all gets done kinda like in pixels... and the info's shipped separately... and then rearranged in your head in quite a complicated process...

but I'm pretty sure it all started with light sensitive cells in holes or something...

and the complications came about quite slowly
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:08:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:05:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 10:33:06 AM, innomen wrote:
I am guessing that proponents of evolution will explain that sight is not such leap, but i still cannot be convinced that either there are certain basic physiological leaps or an evolutionary map.

sight is crazy complicated...

It all gets done kinda like in pixels... and the info's shipped separately... and then rearranged in your head in quite a complicated process...

but I'm pretty sure it all started with light sensitive cells in holes or something...

and the complications came about quite slowly


That's typical response, and i don't dismiss it, i just remain unconvinced, truly by Darwin's own words. I can do without the long complicated answer unless that is the only possible way.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:15:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The issue of eyes is an excellent one, but here goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It even gives an example of one of these primitive intermediary eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:21:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:15:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The issue of eyes is an excellent one, but here goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

that's cool Octopus' have more perfectly 'designed' eyes than we do!

why'd God give us that damned blindspot!?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:30:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:21:50 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:15:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The issue of eyes is an excellent one, but here goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

that's cool Octopus' have more perfectly 'designed' eyes than we do!

why'd God give us that damned blindspot!?

Pretty crazy stuff.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:30:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:15:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The issue of eyes is an excellent one, but here goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It even gives an example of one of these primitive intermediary eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is helpful, but i still find this: "Opsins are a group of light-sensitive 35-55 kDa membrane-bound G protein-coupled receptors of the retinylidene protein family found in photoreceptor cells of the retina. Five classical groups of opsins are involved in vision, mediating the conversion of a photon of light into an electrochemical signal, the first step in the visual transduction cascade. Another opsin found in the mammalian retina, melanopsin, is involved in circadian rhythms and pupillary reflex but not in image-forming." still a leap. I don't see this as a typical evolutionary development. To me it remains "irreducibly complex", perhaps less complex than what is now considered an eye, but still it's a jump that i just have a hard time getting. Because there are light sensitive cells, or proteins within single cell organisms shows evolution, but not an origin.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:35:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:30:50 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:15:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The issue of eyes is an excellent one, but here goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It even gives an example of one of these primitive intermediary eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is helpful, but i still find this: "Opsins are a group of light-sensitive 35-55 kDa membrane-bound G protein-coupled receptors of the retinylidene protein family found in photoreceptor cells of the retina. Five classical groups of opsins are involved in vision, mediating the conversion of a photon of light into an electrochemical signal, the first step in the visual transduction cascade. Another opsin found in the mammalian retina, melanopsin, is involved in circadian rhythms and pupillary reflex but not in image-forming." still a leap. I don't see this as a typical evolutionary development. To me it remains "irreducibly complex", perhaps less complex than what is now considered an eye, but still it's a jump that i just have a hard time getting. Because there are light sensitive cells, or proteins within single cell organisms shows evolution, but not an origin.

maybe mutations made some cell light sensitive and it provides a topical tingle when light is present.

then it's descendants eventually got better and better tingles.... and eventually more, and better, light sensitive cells
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:40:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:35:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:30:50 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:15:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The issue of eyes is an excellent one, but here goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It even gives an example of one of these primitive intermediary eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is helpful, but i still find this: "Opsins are a group of light-sensitive 35-55 kDa membrane-bound G protein-coupled receptors of the retinylidene protein family found in photoreceptor cells of the retina. Five classical groups of opsins are involved in vision, mediating the conversion of a photon of light into an electrochemical signal, the first step in the visual transduction cascade. Another opsin found in the mammalian retina, melanopsin, is involved in circadian rhythms and pupillary reflex but not in image-forming." still a leap. I don't see this as a typical evolutionary development. To me it remains "irreducibly complex", perhaps less complex than what is now considered an eye, but still it's a jump that i just have a hard time getting. Because there are light sensitive cells, or proteins within single cell organisms shows evolution, but not an origin.

maybe mutations made some cell light sensitive and it provides a topical tingle when light is present.

then it's descendants eventually got better and better tingles.... and eventually more, and better, light sensitive cells

Topical tingle is a lot different than sight, or even basic recognition of light. Recognition of light to me means there are some even elementary neurological requirements, even at the most base level. I am unconvinced that this is not irreducibly complex.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:42:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:35:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:30:50 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:15:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The issue of eyes is an excellent one, but here goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It even gives an example of one of these primitive intermediary eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is helpful, but i still find this: "Opsins are a group of light-sensitive 35-55 kDa membrane-bound G protein-coupled receptors of the retinylidene protein family found in photoreceptor cells of the retina. Five classical groups of opsins are involved in vision, mediating the conversion of a photon of light into an electrochemical signal, the first step in the visual transduction cascade. Another opsin found in the mammalian retina, melanopsin, is involved in circadian rhythms and pupillary reflex but not in image-forming." still a leap. I don't see this as a typical evolutionary development. To me it remains "irreducibly complex", perhaps less complex than what is now considered an eye, but still it's a jump that i just have a hard time getting. Because there are light sensitive cells, or proteins within single cell organisms shows evolution, but not an origin.

maybe mutations made some cell light sensitive and it provides a topical tingle when light is present.

then it's descendants eventually got better and better tingles.... and eventually more, and better, light sensitive cells

granted... I don't know what the fck I'm talking about... but hey!.. when it gets this far down... I don't think anyone does.

what I said seems plausible though... and seems like a better explanation than positing a crazy complicated super Creator Being who thought all this stuff out and made it happen.... I have no explanations for how That supposedly could happen.

But I can see cells mutating in a way that they'd be light sensitive and somehow tingle or something such that the creature could realize it... as plausible.

Light DOES have effects on things... in fact if the Right Kind of "light" hit your arm... I'm sure you'd feel some tingling (maybe cooking?) EVEN though your skin cells aren't crazy light-sensitive.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:44:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:40:11 AM, innomen wrote:
Topical tingle is a lot different than sight, or even basic recognition of light. Recognition of light to me means there are some even elementary neurological requirements, even at the most base level. I am unconvinced that this is not irreducibly complex.

topical tingling = neurological connection

if that connection is strengthened... and those cells become more sensitive.. then I could see how that sensitivity gets improved.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:54:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:42:37 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:35:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:30:50 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:15:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The issue of eyes is an excellent one, but here goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It even gives an example of one of these primitive intermediary eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is helpful, but i still find this: "Opsins are a group of light-sensitive 35-55 kDa membrane-bound G protein-coupled receptors of the retinylidene protein family found in photoreceptor cells of the retina. Five classical groups of opsins are involved in vision, mediating the conversion of a photon of light into an electrochemical signal, the first step in the visual transduction cascade. Another opsin found in the mammalian retina, melanopsin, is involved in circadian rhythms and pupillary reflex but not in image-forming." still a leap. I don't see this as a typical evolutionary development. To me it remains "irreducibly complex", perhaps less complex than what is now considered an eye, but still it's a jump that i just have a hard time getting. Because there are light sensitive cells, or proteins within single cell organisms shows evolution, but not an origin.

maybe mutations made some cell light sensitive and it provides a topical tingle when light is present.

then it's descendants eventually got better and better tingles.... and eventually more, and better, light sensitive cells

granted... I don't know what the fck I'm talking about... but hey!.. when it gets this far down... I don't think anyone does.

what I said seems plausible though... and seems like a better explanation than positing a crazy complicated super Creator Being who thought all this stuff out and made it happen.... I have no explanations for how That supposedly could happen.

But I can see cells mutating in a way that they'd be light sensitive and somehow tingle or something such that the creature could realize it... as plausible.

Light DOES have effects on things... in fact if the Right Kind of "light" hit your arm... I'm sure you'd feel some tingling (maybe cooking?) EVEN though your skin cells aren't crazy light-sensitive.

Not sure why you jumped to the God thing, i didn't mention it, this is simply part of evolution where i have a hard time. There are other areas that i have difficulty, but this is the easiest to post. I don't argue that it's plausible, but i remain unconvinced when compared to the rest of natural selection. Developing stronger larger legs, or claws that can help an animal climb make sense, it's clear, but eyes are not as easy for me to incorporate within the simplicity of Darwin's theories.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 11:58:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:54:28 AM, innomen wrote:
Not sure why you jumped to the God thing, i didn't mention it, this is simply part of evolution where i have a hard time. There are other areas that i have difficulty, but this is the easiest to post. I don't argue that it's plausible, but i remain unconvinced when compared to the rest of natural selection. Developing stronger larger legs, or claws that can help an animal climb make sense, it's clear, but eyes are not as easy for me to incorporate within the simplicity of Darwin's theories.

I certainly don't know exactly how it happened....

but it did.

and evolution seems the most/only plausible explanation.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 12:06:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:58:03 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:54:28 AM, innomen wrote:
Not sure why you jumped to the God thing, i didn't mention it, this is simply part of evolution where i have a hard time. There are other areas that i have difficulty, but this is the easiest to post. I don't argue that it's plausible, but i remain unconvinced when compared to the rest of natural selection. Developing stronger larger legs, or claws that can help an animal climb make sense, it's clear, but eyes are not as easy for me to incorporate within the simplicity of Darwin's theories.

I certainly don't know exactly how it happened....

but it did.

and evolution seems the most/only plausible explanation.

As i said, i don't doubt evolution, but there are some sketchy areas of it where i do have doubt, or at perhaps draw different conclusions.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 12:12:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 12:06:57 PM, innomen wrote:
or at perhaps draw different conclusions.

such as?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 12:13:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 12:12:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:06:57 PM, innomen wrote:
or at perhaps draw different conclusions.

such as?

guided evolution... and god works out the tricker bits himself :)
signature
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 12:16:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 11:54:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/26/2010 11:42:37 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
what I said seems plausible though... and seems like a better explanation than positing a crazy complicated super Creator Being who thought all this stuff out and made it happen.... I have no explanations for how That supposedly could happen.
Not sure why you jumped to the God thing

b/c I had a feeling it was coming!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 12:30:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 12:15:40 PM, badger wrote:
why does the evolution of a claw make any more sense than the evolution of an eye?

Because a claw makes more sense in survival of the fittest/natural selection. It also isn't nearly as complex as going from a state of no recognition of light - to light. The neurology of an eye even at it's most basic levels are far more complex, even profound than that of a claw.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 12:38:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 12:30:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:15:40 PM, badger wrote:
why does the evolution of a claw make any more sense than the evolution of an eye?

Because a claw makes more sense in survival of the fittest/natural selection. It also isn't nearly as complex as going from a state of no recognition of light - to light. The neurology of an eye even at it's most basic levels are far more complex, even profound than that of a claw.

how bout the tingling sensation of your skin when the right kind of light is present?

is that more complex than the tingling a cell might give with regular wavelengths?

do you see how that tingling might, plausibly, eventually become more nuanced/complicated than simple tingling... like maybe there gets to be More cells in the area... and they can tell which specific area gets to tingling... (and being that they're all set in a hole such that light from a certain area activates some and not others)

or maybe they differentiate a bit... so that some end up tingling given particular wavelengths... and others on other wavelengths???

and maybe the Tingles of one type are experientially different than the tingles of another?

if so...

I can see how that can allow one to have a Full on color Picture!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 12:50:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 12:38:22 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:30:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:15:40 PM, badger wrote:
why does the evolution of a claw make any more sense than the evolution of an eye?

Because a claw makes more sense in survival of the fittest/natural selection. It also isn't nearly as complex as going from a state of no recognition of light - to light. The neurology of an eye even at it's most basic levels are far more complex, even profound than that of a claw.

how bout the tingling sensation of your skin when the right kind of light is present?

is that more complex than the tingling a cell might give with regular wavelengths?

do you see how that tingling might, plausibly, eventually become more nuanced/complicated than simple tingling... like maybe there gets to be More cells in the area... and they can tell which specific area gets to tingling... (and being that they're all set in a hole such that light from a certain area activates some and not others)

or maybe they differentiate a bit... so that some end up tingling given particular wavelengths... and others on other wavelengths???

and maybe the Tingles of one type are experientially different than the tingles of another?

if so...

I can see how that can allow one to have a Full on color Picture!

No, getting "like maybe there gets to be More cells in the area... and they can tell which specific area gets to tingling." Doesn't work. Here's the thing, you cannot have a sort of pre-set up waiting for a condition to happen in Darwin's evolution. Even the tingling thing is still a bit of a leap, so now you have two leaps to get to a single end. Even a part of a cell that is light sensitive doesn't really help me get to the point of being light sensitive. To say that there are light sensitive proteins seems to sound like they just appeared and are normally existent in a cell. Nope, i don't see that. What you say is plausible, but seems like a stretch, and isn't convincing to me. It's not that i'm digging in my heels here, i truly am not. However, the thread was about issues with evolution, and this is one of my issues.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 12:53:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 12:12:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:06:57 PM, innomen wrote:
or at perhaps draw different conclusions.

such as?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 12:59:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 12:53:42 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:12:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:06:57 PM, innomen wrote:
or at perhaps draw different conclusions.

such as?

Different thread and forum for that.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 1:05:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 12:59:28 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:53:42 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:12:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2010 12:06:57 PM, innomen wrote:
or at perhaps draw different conclusions.

such as?

Different thread and forum for that.

lol... you're saying that Evolution of such things is plausible... but the idea's not convincing.

and that there're other conclusions which might be better drawn/more plausible.

IF this is so... I TOO would have a problem with evolution.

my defense of it is that it's MOST plausible.

so... if you'd kindly relate what is more plausible/makes more sense.... I'd very much appreciate it as It would Most Certainly be relevant in an Issues With Evolution thread!!!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."