The Skinny On Evilution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2013, 12:29 PM
The Skinny On Evilution
My friend sent me the following this week. Do you not agree?

[/align]**

Evolutionists claim evolution brings us forward. I find this claim odd.

The skinny on evolution:
1) Ever-small changes in biology occur by chance
2) Those animals better suited for survival survive, while others do not
3) This leads to ever increasing complexity of the biological kingdom. Organisms started relatively non-complex, and over time, became more complex.

Easy enough, right?

The first two statements seem reasonable and line up with the observed. The third, however, directly conflicts with the first two! Maybe the third is correct and the other two are wrong! Who knows?

Any engineer, or project manager, or person with a high school degree, can tell you, dear reader, that the more complex something becomes, the more likely it will break. Biologically speaking then, increasing complexity decreases the chances of survival.

An example is in order: take the amoeba and the human. If we were to measure the temperature range that both organisms could survive, we'd see that the ameba wins. If we did the same for oxygen content in the atmosphere, and the amount of sunlight required, the amoeba wins again.

These three axes give us a volume. The volume is then the chances of survival. The bigger the volume, the greater the chances of survival.

One can add as many axes as one likes. The fact remains: simple creatures have a better shot at surviving than complex, if (1) and (2) above are true.

This means that organisms, over time, must become less complex, as the more complex die off on account of the fact that they show less of a chance for survival. If true, this means, likely, that we are becoming dumber, as intelligence takes a hit. For those who dabble in the spiritual, we are becoming then spiritually more base (less complex, less sophisticated).

As a consequence, far from (1) and (2) leading to (3), (1) and (2) lead to the exact opposite of (3)!

The limit to all this evolutionary change over a long time provided (1) and (2) are true is then death of all organisms. This is fine for the dead organism never dies, the ultimate immortality, except for the fact that it is, namely, dead.

Considering the fact that evolutionist demand by their very own argument of chance that we have been evolving for trillions of years, it seems odd that we are still here!

Going back to basics, one then has to question whether or not life is simply a question of chance and change. Murphy's Law argues against it. Common sense won't hear of it. I, for one, choose not to believe the unbelievable. This is my right, I'll do what I want, nobody can stop me - so there!

Furthermore, one also has to question whether or not the biological evidence has been 'forced' (manipulated) to agree with (3). What would happen if we reviewed such evidence with an open mind?

And if (3) were true, the evolutionist must come up with a better theory to explain it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 12:33 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
What's with the name of the thread? Evilution?
That'd be like if I called Christianity "Shitianity"

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Question's post
14-06-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
1. I don't believe it's "chance"
2. Partial answer
3 Define "increasing complexity"

In short you're offering a specious vaguely written and poorly constructed idea about evolution.

Shoo fly


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
14-06-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
I'd bet that the more axes put into any given circumstance, the less chance for survival.

[Image: RuefulAxe.png]

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
14-06-2013, 01:44 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  My friend sent me the following this week. Do you not agree?

[/align]**

Evolutionists claim evolution brings us forward. I find this claim odd.

The skinny on evolution:
1) Ever-small changes in biology occur by chance
2) Those animals better suited for survival survive, while others do not
3) This leads to ever increasing complexity of the biological kingdom. Organisms started relatively non-complex, and over time, became more complex.

Easy enough, right?

The first two statements seem reasonable and line up with the observed. The third, however, directly conflicts with the first two! Maybe the third is correct and the other two are wrong! Who knows?

Any engineer, or project manager, or person with a high school degree, can tell you, dear reader, that the more complex something becomes, the more likely it will break. Biologically speaking then, increasing complexity decreases the chances of survival.

An example is in order: take the amoeba and the human. If we were to measure the temperature range that both organisms could survive, we'd see that the ameba wins. If we did the same for oxygen content in the atmosphere, and the amount of sunlight required, the amoeba wins again.

These three axes give us a volume. The volume is then the chances of survival. The bigger the volume, the greater the chances of survival.

One can add as many axes as one likes. The fact remains: simple creatures have a better shot at surviving than complex, if (1) and (2) above are true.

This means that organisms, over time, must become less complex, as the more complex die off on account of the fact that they show less of a chance for survival. If true, this means, likely, that we are becoming dumber, as intelligence takes a hit. For those who dabble in the spiritual, we are becoming then spiritually more base (less complex, less sophisticated).

As a consequence, far from (1) and (2) leading to (3), (1) and (2) lead to the exact opposite of (3)!

The limit to all this evolutionary change over a long time provided (1) and (2) are true is then death of all organisms. This is fine for the dead organism never dies, the ultimate immortality, except for the fact that it is, namely, dead.

Considering the fact that evolutionist demand by their very own argument of chance that we have been evolving for trillions of years, it seems odd that we are still here!

Going back to basics, one then has to question whether or not life is simply a question of chance and change. Murphy's Law argues against it. Common sense won't hear of it. I, for one, choose not to believe the unbelievable. This is my right, I'll do what I want, nobody can stop me - so there!

Furthermore, one also has to question whether or not the biological evidence has been 'forced' (manipulated) to agree with (3). What would happen if we reviewed such evidence with an open mind?

And if (3) were true, the evolutionist must come up with a better theory to explain it.


You continue to display your utter misunderstanding of evolution.

There is no progress in evolution.
There is no foresight in evolution.
There is no drive to more complexity in evolution.

Some organisms become more complex because complexity accrues; some complexity enables further complexity.
Some organisms become simpler if that is more suited to the environment.
Some organisms stay the same if that is most suited to the environment.

Complex organisms are, in a sense, breaking all the time.
Mutations occur in every generation, some have a phenotypic effect, some do not.
Organisms get cancers.
Organisms break down and die.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
14-06-2013, 01:57 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2013 10:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
Thanks for proving, yet again, you have no clue what you're talking about.
But, keep it up. At least you're a consistent idiot.
Weeping

Increasing complexity does not necessarily decrease the possibility of survival. An organism that develops sensory mechanisms and locomotion, and multiple mechanisms to use various food sources can escape a threat, and a specific danger, and thrive in different environments. The analogy is simplistic, and a false generalization.

"These three axes give us a volume. The volume is then the chances of survival. The bigger the volume, the greater the chances of survival."

"The volume is then the chances of survival" ?????
Look carefully at that sentence boys and girls. THAT is a perfect example of what is called, in Logic, as a "non-sequitur".
I emailed it to my sister so she can use it in her high school Logic class for sophomores.
If a simple organism lacks locomotion, the volume is irrelevant.
That has to be one of the most idiotic attempts at establishing a correlation or connection between two things I have ever seen.

"One can add as many axes as one likes."

Oh really.
Just how many dimensions do you have to add ?
Another completely idiotic statement.

"This means that organisms, over time, must become less complex, as the more complex die off on account of the fact that they show less of a chance for survival. If true, this means, likely, that we are becoming dumber, as intelligence takes a hit. For those who dabble in the spiritual, we are becoming then spiritually more base (less complex, less sophisticated)."

What the fuck was THAT supposed to mean ? A string of words with no meaning, no support. I think the writer is on drugs, or drunk.

As a consequence, far from (1) and (2) leading to (3), (1) and (2) lead to the exact opposite of (3)!

"The limit to all this evolutionary change over a long time provided (1) and (2) are true is then death of all organisms. This is fine for the dead organism never dies, the ultimate immortality, except for the fact that it is, namely, dead."

Brilliant. Simply brilliant. A dead organism is dead. Just a genius we have on our hands here. Weeping

"Considering the fact that evolutionist demand by their very own argument of chance that we have been evolving for trillions of years, it seems odd that we are still here!"

Well, since the universe is only a few billion years old, I guess that piece of shit statement speaks for itself.

"And if (3) were true, the evolutionist must come up with a better theory to explain it."

Oh, like a god did it ? THE most idiotic explanation ever devised.

If this is the level on which SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke normally operates, on a day to day basis, all I can say is :
"no wonder ........
no wonder" he's into prophesy" and Bible code crap.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
14-06-2013, 02:17 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The skinny on evolution:
1) Ever-small changes in biology occur by chance
2) Those animals better suited for survival survive, while others do not
3) This leads to ever increasing complexity of the biological kingdom. Organisms started relatively non-complex, and over time, became more complex.

Nobody (sorry - no competent scientist) has ever claimed 3. Points 1 and 2 constitute a reasonable definition of the process of evolution. Point 3 is something somebody made up based on nothing at all. To pass it off as "what evolutionists claim" - to quote a wise man - suggests malice, dishonesty, or plain stupidity. I'd bet on all three.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The fact remains: simple creatures have a better shot at surviving than complex, if (1) and (2) above are true.

Points 1 and 2 (as YOU defined them, remember) make no statement as to the evolutionary advantages or disadvantages of increased complexity. Therefore no conclusions can be drawn about the survivability and reproductive viability of organisms based solely on your (no doubt ill-defined) notion of complexity. The advantage of complexity is in increased abilities. The disadvantage is in increased failure rate. If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages then it is a net benefit. I know you know this. Why pretend otherwise?

All else being equal, simplicity is preferable.

All else is never equal.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  This means that organisms, over time, must become less complex, as the more complex die off on account of the fact that they show less of a chance for survival. If true, this means, likely, that we are becoming dumber, as intelligence takes a hit. For those who dabble in the spiritual, we are becoming then spiritually more base (less complex, less sophisticated).

Some of us seem to be becoming dumber, all right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
14-06-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
You've asked for book recommendations in the past (which you've never bothered to have someone read to you). But I have a website recommendation, which I really think will benefit you . . . and the rest of us as well: Check this out! http://q13fox.com/2013/06/05/seattle-wom...z2VSmso96j Did you know that you can survive on just sunlight and water!!?? But you have to be planted, first! I think we could get volunteers to help! I got shovels, dirt, some property and plenty of sunlight! Hell, I've even got water! Anybody care to help?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2013 02:25 PM by mysterics.)
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
Statement 3 is a generalization; the evolutionary tree has become more complex over time and complex lifeforms only existed after life went through a 'simple' phase, but it isn't completely true, because, indeed, sometimes it's better to be simple and a certain lifeforms can evolve to be more simple if need be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
Read Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. He is a Biologist and a Theist.

I'm sure you won't but at least I can say I tried.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: