Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
Post Reply
Ceeboo
God
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Ceeboo »

SteelHead wrote:For ceboo
Evolution is a demonstrated fact like gravity is a demonstrated fact.
The theory of evolution is our current understanding of how/why the process occurs, just like the theory of gravity is our current understanding of how/why gravity occurs. That gravity or evolution occur is not disputed in science.

That religionists can't wrap their mind around this, is their own problem. Evolution is demonstrable. God did it, isn't.


Hey Steel,

First, for you to suggest that "religionists" are the only group of people that have varying degrees of skepticism about the theory of evolution is a big part of the problem. But I understand why you feel the need to make such a suggestion.

Second, evolution can be seen and demonstrated. The op example reminded me of Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islsnd, where environment change caused adaptations within the beaks of the Finch. That's a very far cry from accepting, with absolute certainty, that the ancient 4 legged land dwelling quadruped (raccoon) has evolved into the modern whale.

Also, in my mind, if you were to consider what the evolutionary process would have had to be for something like sexual reproduction, your head just might explode. But perhaps yours wouldn't? Maybe you take the position of certainty in these things? Either way, I don't have s problem if you take such a position, I just don't share said position.

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8249
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by SteelHead »

Ceeboo, religionists are the majority group who oppose evolution. They base their opposition in their "revealed scripture", then resort to all kinds of special pleading arguments to defend their position. There are some non religious skeptics, they are a teeny minority.

Again the "theory of gravity" is our best understanding of the causes and mechanics of observable phenomena.

The "the theory of evolution" is our best understanding of the causes and mechanics of observable phenomena.

That gravity occurs is settled. Drop a ball.
That evolution occurs is settled. Re the study referenced in the OP.

Our understanding of the mechanics of the phenomena will develop over time, and the theory related to the phenomena may change, this doesn't change that the underlying observable phenomena is occurring.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8249
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by SteelHead »

Xenophon wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:Oh yeah? Show me a crocoduck. Checkmate, evilutionists!
But what about whales and raccoons!?!?


sorry Ceebanator

Xenophon called it over 2 months ago.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin

Ceeboo
God
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Ceeboo »

SteelHead wrote:Ceeboo, religionists are the majority group who oppose evolution. They base their opposition in their "revealed scripture", then resort to all kinds of special pleading arguments to defend their position. There are some non religious skeptics, they are a teeny minority.


Steel, in my mind, you are mostly correct. Especially as it relates the various special pleading arguments used in an attempt to defend positions. Where I think you underestimate things is suggesting that there are a teeny minority of non religious skeptics. From my experience (rather limited to be sure) there are many non religionists skeptics and these non religionists skeptics hold various positions with equally various levels of skepticism.

Gunnar
God
Posts: 5630
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Gunnar »

Ceeboo wrote:Also, in my mind, if you were to consider what the evolutionary process would have had to be for something like sexual reproduction, your head just might explode. But perhaps yours wouldn't? Maybe you take the position of certainty in these things? Either way, I don't have s problem if you take such a position, I just don't share said position.

Ceeboo, the evolution of sex is not nearly as farfetched as you seem to think it is. There are both extremely simple sexual reproduction strategies and extremely complex sexual reproduction strategies, and numerous intermediate strategies. Both extremes from the simplest to the most complex and plenty of intermediate forms of sexual reproduction still exist and clearly show how sexual reproduction could have gradually evolved over time. Please take a look at this short video, and you will see what I mean. I trust you will find it very interesting: The Evolution of Sex.

See also: Sexual Reproduction Origins PBS
Last edited by Gunnar on Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9847
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Res Ipsa »

SPG wrote:
I am closer to truth by admission of my ignorance than anyone is by claiming to know.


Your actions are entirely inconsistent with admitting ignorance. You give lip service to the phrase, but over and over again state false information as if it were true. That's not being close to truth. That's being confused or dishonest.

SPG wrote:You said a key word, theory. We don't know. There is some very good and professional thinking.


Now you're equivocating both with "'theory" and "know." If you're as well read as you purport to be on the topic, you know what constitutes a scientific theory. And you know very well that theory is not the same as "we don't know." But look at how fast you did a 180 on not knowing. When you claim you don't know, it's a badge of honor. When you say scientists don't know, it's a matter of contempt. It's a wonder that with all this coming and going you don't crash into yourself and fall down.

SPG wrote:My personal experience is that there are some things real that evolutionists tend to disagree with. Like my near death experience. Evolutionists would try to explain how my brain was starving of oxygen, all the brain energy was sucked up into some area of the brain that causes hallucinations to make me think I was seeing Angels. I saw them lift a truck off of my sister along with my brother in law. I saw a lot of things over about 30 minutes.


That has nothing to do with accepting evolutionary theory.

SPG wrote:But evolutionists specifically deny the idea of a soul that embodies into the mortal body. They have explained life without the soul and no good book in going to change my mind. And I don't want my mind changed. I have my own theory but willing to be challenged. But my theory involves things we sort of know about but don't really put it into the equation. Like that we cannot see 97% of our universe. But evolutionists are quick to poo-poo the idea that there is intelligence beyond our realm.


Books on evolution by evolutionary biologists are not going to talk about the soul. There are mainstream evolutionary biologists who fully accept the theory of evolution and still believe in the soul.

But I think you finally go to the root of what you've been telling us. You don't want your mind changed. You won't expose yourself to information that runs the risk of changing your mind. You don't really believe that all perspectives are true. You don't really believe that we can't know the truth of anything. I don't see anything wrong with having a core of stuff you are so certain of that you won't put it up for grabs. But don't then try to portray yourself as an open minded person, treating all perspectives as "true."

SPG wrote:Theory has it that at the time of the big bang, 97% of the energy was so hot it instantly made a quantum leap into a higher dimension. But, somehow, evolutionists are pretty they understand what is happening.


That's a complete non-sequitur. Evolution is about biologic and chemical processes on earth. The big bang has nothing to do with it. You're just repeating a trope: that unless someone knows everything, they know nothing. Apply it to yourself. If you don't know everything, you don't know that you saw angels.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9847
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Res Ipsa »

Ceeboo wrote:Hey SPG

IMO, this particular discussion board is full of absolute certain believers in Darwinian evolution. So much so that many who would normally use some measure of healthy skepticism for almost every other topic, they will not use such skepticism regarding this particular topic. In my mind, there are clear reasons for this being the case.

While the current theory of evolution might well be factual, in my mind, it has numerous problems and gaping holes.

The most unfortunate part about it, imo, is that questioning and/or challenging any part of said theory, one is frequently treated to mockery, or by being called ignorant, or by being told to read a book. Considering how fascinating the topic is, I think that's really unfortunate at best.

Among a very long list of serious problems, in my mind, here are a mere few:

Abiogenesis (life spontaneously arising from non living matter)
Evolution of sexual reproduction
Evolution of mitosis

for what it's worth, I do not believe that you will have much success discussing this fascinating topic here. Maybe I'm wrong.
Good luck.


Hi Ceeboo, good to see you.

What skepticism is all about is demanding evidence and following it where it leads. Modern evolutionary theory is where the evidence leads in terms of explaining the development and history of life on earth. The theory would predict that creatures existed between the the raccoon and the whale, and maybe, someday, we'll find one.

The issues you raise are pretty specialized. "Read a book" is a perfectly appropriate response to questions in those areas. And if one were interested in what the evidence is in those areas, as opposed to trying to argue that the whole theory is bollocks, that's what one would do. I don't know much about philosophy, and if I wanted to know about some esoteric area of philosophy, I wouldn't ask somewhere here to tutor me in philosophy. I would ask them for recommendations on books to help me learn.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 21823
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by moksha »

Chap wrote:
moksha wrote:I would never accept that you understand it all.


Oh, nor would I. Perhaps the difference between us is that I pretty sure where the boundary between my knowledge and my ignorance lies, and (given that life is finite) I don't spend a lot of time in vague speculations about what lies beyond that boundary.

Are you sure I was the one who said that? It sounds very unMoksha-like.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Chap
God
Posts: 13937
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Chap »

Chap wrote:
SPG wrote:I would never accept that you understand it all.


Oh, nor would I. Perhaps the difference between us is that I pretty sure where the boundary between my knowledge and my ignorance lies, and (given that life is finite) I don't spend a lot of time in vague speculations about what lies beyond that boundary. After all, all I have is a few litres of mildly electrified live porridge in my skull, and it would be unfair to expect it to be able to contain the answer to everything, or even to be able to formulate all the relevant questions needed to get even 1% of the way there. Of what one does not know, thereof one must remain silent. (I didn't say that, by the way. Guy called Ludwig Wittgenstein.)

Here is a little present for you, Try reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Things-Lu ... way&sr=8-2

That's just one edition: others are available. A man in Rome wrote it 2,000 years ago, with the huge ambition of explaining how everything in the universe worked, on the basis that everything was made of atoms, and that is all there is. Try it. It has the same effect on the mind as a sharp mouthwash has on the teeth and gums.


Sorry moksha - I really can't work out how the quote mistake happened. But above is the post as I intended it to be.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

Gunnar
God
Posts: 5630
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Gunnar »

Chap wrote:
moksha wrote:I would never accept that you understand it all.


Oh, nor would I. Perhaps the difference between us is that I pretty sure where the boundary between my knowledge and my ignorance lies, and (given that life is finite) I don't spend a lot of time in vague speculations about what lies beyond that boundary.

moksha wrote:Are you sure I was the one who said that? It sounds very unMoksha-like.

I agree. I have read enough of your posts that that does indeed sound very unMoksha-like. I am sure that was another instance of mistaking an imbedded quote of you quoting someone else as a quote by you. It is an easy mistake to make. I have both been guilty of that kind of mistake and been a victim of that kind of mistake myself occasionally. This can easily happen when attempting to quote quotes with imbedded quotes if not careful enough.
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison

Ceeboo
God
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Ceeboo »

Hey Gunnar

Gunnar wrote:
Ceeboo wrote:Also, in my mind, if you were to consider what the evolutionary process would have had to be for something like sexual reproduction, your head just might explode. But perhaps yours wouldn't? Maybe you take the position of certainty in these things? Either way, I don't have s problem if you take such a position, I just don't share said position.

Ceeboo, the evolution of sex is not nearly as farfetched as you seem to think it is.

I have no issues with you sharing your opinion with me that the evolutionary processes involved in sexual reproduction is not nearly as far-fetched as I think it is. But to be clear with you, I don't think it's just far-fetched, I think it's completely impossible (preposterous in fact). The good news: We need to agree. making our positions clear - even if said positions differ - seem more valuable, at least IMO.

Sexual reproduction is an all or none event.(Would you agree with this?) Would you say that one multi-cellular animal (A male) grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal (A female) that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen? How could perfectly matched male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a species? What microsteps and/or evolutionary processes could possibly be at play that would account for male/female sexual reproduction to occur? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The mutations and NS of one gender would have to “know” what mutations and NS were taking place for the other gender. And since there is no intelligence involved, according to most evolutionists, this scenario is not possible.

The same is true for cell mitosis (cell splitting for reproduction) - Mitosis is an all or none event. Cells cannot split .00001, then .00002…….(Would you agree?) Mitosis cannot evolve in small steps. Period. It’s a split or no split deal. The other major problem is the fact that for evolution to occur, cells must go through mitosis so that traits and mutations can be passed on the future generations and be improved upon. In other words, mitosis can’t evolve unless there is mitosis!

The fertilization of the female egg by a sperm is also all-or-none. So is copulation. (Would you agree?)

Anway, thanks for engaging.

User avatar
Chap
God
Posts: 13937
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Chap »

Ceeboo wrote: have no issues with you sharing your opinion with me that the evolutionary processes involved in sexual reproduction is not nearly as far-fetched as I think it is. But to be clear with you, I don't think it's just far-fetched, I think it's completely impossible (preposterous in fact).


And the most frightening thing for evolutionary biologists is that none of them has ever asked the obvious question of how sexual reproduction could possibly have evolved.

And now, on an obscure ex-Mormon discussion board, the gallant Ceeboo steps forth and asks the killer questions. As a result, the whole rickety structure of evolutionary 'science' will surely collapse before our eyes, amidst anguished howls of "Why didn't we think of that before? WHY???"

Oh wait ... I see that the Ceeboo haters of the Deep State have already swung into action. They have not only cobbled together a lengthy Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... production

... but they have also, in a typically underhand way, started to insert entries in library catalogues of books on the evolution of sexuality supposedly published years ago! Pathetic, no?

They've even put one on line, supposedly published in 1978 by Cambridge University Press:

The Evolution of Sex
John Maynard Smith
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... production

If we keep an eye open, we shall see dozens of fake articles and books making their appearance. But it will take more than that to maintain the ragged shreds of scientific plausibility which are all they have left after Ceeboo has blown their cover.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

Ceeboo
God
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Ceeboo »

I went back to some of my old emails and found the below exchange - It was sent to me by a friend a while ago. To be clear, I am not sharing it in an attempt to lend weight to my personal skepticism, rather, I am sharing it (as well as many others I could share) to illustrate what happens when you simply challenge and or question what is a widely accepted theory.

(I am posting the entire exchange below, for full context - sorry it's kinda long)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a discussion with an evolutionaut, I was referred to a paper that purportedly described how lungs evolved. I used lungs as an example of an organ system that could not possibly evolve in microsteps. The “respected” peer reviewed paper he referred me to, after going through rhetorical gyrations, concluded that we don’t know how lungs evolved. The paper: Deconvoluting Lung Evolution Using Functional and Comparative Genomics, from the American Journal of Respiratory Biology, was written by: TORDAY John S. ;REHAN Virender K. The paper concludes:

” We are still far from uniting proximate ontogenetic mechanisms and ultimate adaptive processes to explain the evolution of lung structure and function…”

An honest assessment, unlike the title, much to the chagrin of the evolutionaut that referred me to the paper. I added this paper to the papers I used on this blog to demonstrate that no paper that touted that the writer will explain how the entity being described evolved actually did so. No peer reviewed evo-paper has any idea how any biological system evolved. One of the writers of the paper cited, Dr. John Torday, noticed that I had a segment of his paper on my blog. He left a comment, which I responded to. We had a brief discussion, which ended the same way so many discussions with evolutionauts and evo-illusionists do, as you will see. Dr. Torday, has written 15o peer reviewed papers, 321 abstracts, on the subject of evolution; and a book, “Evolutionary Biology, Cell-Cell Communication, and Complex Disease”. So he is extremely well qualified to come to this blog and discuss with me. The discussion began with John: (My side-bars are in red.)

John Torday said

October 13, 2013

Steve, I note that you cited our paper Torday Joseph Smith, Rehan VK. Deconvoluting lung evolution using functional/comparative genomics. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2004 Jul;31(1):8-12., in which we acknowledged that we are a long way from understanding the process by which the lung evolved. The point of the paper was to demonstrate that cell biology is absent from the evolution literature, and can be exploited to trace the evolution of the lung back to its origins using ontogeny and phylogeny as guideposts. We may never know our origins, but we must continue to strive in that effort if we are to move away from fear and uncertainty towards knowledge and power over our fate. Evolution is existential, and is the mechanism by which we have been granted the Free Will of inquiry. If only folks like you would work towards the continued gaining knowledge and fostering inquiry we would all be the better for it. We went through the Luddite phase of human history, riding on the momentum of The Enlightenment. Must we re-learn that lesson? I guess so. jst

stevebee92653 said,

(I gave him a friendly and respectful response. I always hope I can get an intelligent and respectful discussion with any evolutionaut or evo-illusionist. It’s such a rare occurrence.)

October 13, 2013

Hi John.

Thanks for commenting on my blog. I feel honored that you would take the time. Reality is that there is no possible or even imaginary pathway to the evolution of ANY biological system of any kind. Evolution can’t even account for the formation of a simple blood vessel or pulmonary alveoli. All papers (like yours) on the subject of the evolution of any biological system are replete with anatomy, biochemistry, physiology; but not one can explain any evolutionary pathway whatsoever. If you can’t explain the pathway to a lung micro-sac, how can you ever explain a lung? And the blood vessels that inundate the lung? You say you are modern science, and obviously think I am calling for a reversal to the dark days of ignorance. These ARE actually the dark days of ignorance. We humans have no idea what the source of any biological system is, so our lifeboat is evolution. Science is stuck in this lifeboat. Good science should say that mankind just isn’t even in the ballpark here. We should continue a search certainly. Evolution has ceased that search. All writings (like yours) and and all research are geared to PROVE evolution, not to SEARCH the truth or TEST evolution. Your paper’s conclusion is actually scientifically very correct, except for the part where you assign evolution as the creator of the lung. We humans have no idea how lungs came to be. We both know that to be fact. When you can explain the formation of the lung, (and vision, and hearing, and consciousness/intelligence, and bird flight…) THEN make the theory. Until then, humans have no theory. They have a fable.

John Torday said

October 29, 2013

Hi Steve, I fully agree with you that traditional Darwinist mutation and selection cannot explain evolution. However, the approach I have advocated in Evolutionary Biology, Cell-Cell Communication and Complex Disease (Wiley, 2012; Amazon.com) provides a portal for understanding the evolution of complex physiology starting with unicellular organisms. Bear in mind that there is no cell biology in all of evolution theory, so how could the current state of that discipline possibly be relevant to all the other cell-based biologic disciplines. The ‘fossil record’ is buried in the cell signaling mechanisms responsible for multicellular organisms, but of course they are not evident in the physical fossils. That’s why the molecular clocks invariably point to much earlier stages in phylogeny than the boney fossils do, for example. I am trying to pave the way to a working model of evolution. John

(No cell biology in evolution theory? Cells didn’t evolve? Uh oh. Of course they HAD to evolve to get to where we are today. The first known cells, bacteria, had to form their various parts (flagella, organelles, etc.), evolve into various species, and into eukaryotes, much larger cells with encapsulated cell- parts that make up humans and all modern multi-cellular organisms. Maybe he means there is no cell biology written about in the theory? His is the only paper?)

stevebee92653 said,

October 30, 2013

Hi John
I wish you luck in your research. Sincerely. I really wish evolution were the answer, as it’s so simple and basic. It was a great answer for me for many years. I was a staunch supporter and fan. Of course you know I have a preconceived notion about the outcome of your research. From my studies, thoughts, and observations, evolution isn’t even in the mix as a source for the origin of biological systems and species. The biggest problem is not “design” as is touted and argued by evolution science. It’s invention: the bringing into existence of incredibly complex entities (like auditory systems, brains, consciousness, and cardiopulmonary systems) AND comparatively simplistic entities (like eukaryotic cells, bird nests, and tubes) on an absolutely sterile planet. Improvement in design is dwarfed by origination of design.
I would like to read your book, but why so expensive? Mine is 265 pages, and sells on Amazon for $15 Also, I would like to forward you a copy of my book as my gift if you think you would give it a read. It is very different than my blog, and has a lot of new thoughts and material. Evo-illusion has chapters that deal with the origin of cells, the first multicellular organisms, and why they are evidence that evolution cannot be the source.
It’s not religious in the least, nor am I. So it isn’t the creationist material that every evolution supporter expects. I would like to get an intelligent critique, and I think I could expect one from you; if you think you might have the time, and interest.
Thanks for the reply
Steve

John Torday said,

October 30, 2013

Steve, the price of my book was determined by the publisher. Please send me your book and I will read and comment. I will send you mine by email as an attachment. What’s your email address?

John

(I set the price of my own book. Most soft-cover books of two to three hundred pages cost about $15 to $20. So why would John’s be r $74.65? My gawd, His Kindle is $60.00! Mine is $3.99. I hope his book isn’t’ a course requirement for his classes at UCLA. John’s students not only get evo-indoctrinated, they get ripped off on their class book as well? Or maybe he doesn’t want any sales, which his price guarantees. I can’t imagine which.)

stevebee92653 said,

October 30, 2013

Great. I will look forward to reading yours. And your critique of mine. My email address is xxxxxxxxx. I just updated my book, so I will get copies in about a week. I should be able to get your address off your website?

John Torday said,

(John and I are now good buddies, and exchanging books!)

November 7, 2013

Steve,

Regarding a way of understanding the evolutionary process, there is no cell biology in all of the evolution literature other than what I have published. If you start from single-celled organisms, the entire blueprint for multicellular organisms is held within them. As proof of principle, that is why we go from zygote to zygote. And as for your comment about not seeing ‘half evolved livers, or hearts or blood vessels’, you do, at the molecular level; the genetic basis for all of those structures lies within the phylogenetic background for the ancestral lineage; why else would there be a progression for the heart from the worm to amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds? The cell membrane of the unicellular organism is the homolog of all of the multicellular vital organs-skin, lung, kidney, heart, brain. And even if that’s not exactly right, at least in the pursuit of this model of evolution we will learn more and more about what the ultimate truth for how and why we exist is. It is far better than sitting in ignorance in an intellectual vacuum. I found your blog because you had cited one of my peer-reviewed scientific concepts for cellular evolution, in which you cherry-picked my intellectually-honest comment that we don’t know how the lung evolved, yet the paper offered a novel way of thinking in a forward direction about how that could be accomplished that was testable and refutable.

(John proposes a fable, (half-evolved organs exist at the molecular level), then says it may not be “exactly right”, which it isn’t. Then he suggests that I am sitting in “ignorance, in an intellectual vacuum.” Is the “demean card’ being played here, or is it my imagination? We’ll see. What is astounding is he thinks the blueprint for multicelled organisms is carried by unicellular organisms. Of course that is true only if the unicellular organism is the fertilized egg of a multicellular organism. Species that spend their entire existence unicelled of course have no blueprints for anything but future unicelled organisms. What John is doing here is taking the most difficult roadblock for evolution, the evolution of sexual procreation, and turning it into evidence that supports evolution. Evolution cannot account whatsoever for the evolution of sexual procreation. This is a brilliant move for an evo-illusionist that is trying to trick his students. I wonder if he gets challenged by any of them in any of his classes on this one. Most are pre-indoctrinated, and they are going for a grade, so I doubt it. )

stevebee92653 said,

November 7, 2013

John
When I wrote my book, I thoroughly researched what evolution has to say about the origin of cells, and the evolution of multicellular organisms from single celled species. As you say, there was and is virtually an immense hole in evolutionary theory. Evolution can’t even attempt to explain the bridge from single celled species to the smallest multiples: 1,000+ celled species. There aren’t any examples in the fossil record, and none that exist today to show how that evolution occurred. Your “progression” is cherry picked.
If you choose to cite progressions, you must show progressions for all biological systems, which you cannot. The progression for the evolution of a simple sac (bladder, bird lung sac, gall bladder) and ducts and blood vessels kill your notion about demonstrable progression. No human can even come up with a fable that describes the evolution of sacs and tubes. The cardiopulmonary systems that you cite are made up of immense numbers of tubes and sacs. If you choose to cite hearts, show me how their closed systems evolved:, the tubes in those hearts, the sacs in the lungs that feed them oxygen, and the closed “sacs” (chambers) in the hearts, How did they come to be by slow progression?
Were did the “entire blueprint” you cite come from? Do you have even imaginary steps for the formation of the coding and “blueprint” for any biological system?

Regarding: “The cell membrane of the unicellular organism is the homolog of all of the multicellular vital organs-skin, lung, kidney, heart, brain.”
This isn’t acceptable from an educated person such as you. You are proffering dogma. This is purely made up stuff.

Re: “It is far (better) than sitting in ignorance in an intellectual vacuum.”

This is pure strawman. You are suggesting that I prefer “sitting in ignorance in an intellectual vacuum”, which is insulting, and not well thought out by you John. The intellectual vacuum is presented by evolution. As long as it is accepted as valid science, and as long as scientists spend all of their efforts trying to prove this faulty theory, instead of going with what the evidence shows, science is in a vacuum. It will be for hundreds of years, thanks to Darwin.
The conclusion of your paper is the exact same as the conclusion of virtually every single paper that I researched. Evolution peer reviewed papers that supposedly explain the evolution of biological systems always discuss anatomy, histology, physiology… not one single one, including yours, has any idea how even the simplest of biological systems evolved or formed. Not one. I have many other examples on the page where your paper is quoted. They are all the same. I could add hundreds of more examples.
Evolution cannot design anything. But even more daunting for evolution scientists is the explanation of how evolution invented. Designs yield improvements on inventions. Inventions produced by nature are incredible electromagnetic and bio-mechanical systems that even the best geniuses who ever lived could not think up if they somehow could view the Earth as a sterile planet free of any devices of any kind. The greatest geniuses couldn’t even come up with the concept of life. Nor can they define it. Which means humanity is still out in the cold as far as solving the Puzzle of origins.

John Torday said,

November 7, 2013

Steve, do you question the validity of development starting from a single fertilized egg? Unless you do, you must acknowledge that our Physiology emanates from a single cell, and the consensus is that multicellular organisms emanated from single cells phylogenetically as well. My guess is that if you had been present when Prometheus discovered fire, you would have blown the flame out in the name of ignorance.

(Ah, there is it. The “demean card”. It wasn’t my imagination at all. This guy that sounded so friendly at first was just an ordinary evo-illusionist, fooling his students en mass. And trying to fool me. He thinks I would have blown out Prometheus’ fire? Prometheus didn’t discover fire anyway. There were plenty of fires around before he came along. Dr. John Ph.D. might want to check his history on this one.)

stevebee92653 said,

November 7, 2013 at 11:27 pm · Edit

John, you are getting insulting, which is what virtually all evolutionauts do when they don’t have rational and plausible answers. In your mind you are smart and superior; you have all the answers. You have been empowered by evolution. Evolution gave you the power to demean a person (like me) with questions. Anyone who even attempts to discuss why evolution may not be the solution to the Puzzle is “ignorant”. I really expected more from you. You are doing no more than any routine run of the mill evolution zealot that comments on my YouTube videos. I hope you reload on some of these comments. By the way John, do you know the difference between cellular differentiation and evolution? I certainly hope so, at your level of education. Your question intimates that you are a bit confused about these two processes.

(That was the last I heard from John. For now, anyway.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of exchange.

Ceeboo
God
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Ceeboo »

Chap wrote:
Ceeboo wrote: have no issues with you sharing your opinion with me that the evolutionary processes involved in sexual reproduction is not nearly as far-fetched as I think it is. But to be clear with you, I don't think it's just far-fetched, I think it's completely impossible (preposterous in fact).


And the most frightening thing for evolutionary biologists is that none of them has ever asked the obvious question of how sexual reproduction could possibly have evolved.

And now, on an obscure ex-Mormon discussion board, the gallant Ceeboo steps forth and asks the killer questions. As a result, the whole rickety structure of evolutionary 'science' will surely collapse before our eyes, amidst anguished howls of "Why didn't we think of that before? WHY???"

Oh wait ... I see that the Ceeboo haters of the Deep State have already swung into action. They have not only cobbled together a lengthy Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... production

... but they have also, in a typically underhand way, started to insert entries in library catalogues of books on the evolution of sexuality supposedly published years ago! Pathetic, no?

They've even put one on line, supposedly published in 1978 by Cambridge University Press:

The Evolution of Sex
John Maynard Smith
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... production

If we keep an eye open, we shall see dozens of fake articles and books making their appearance. But it will take more than that to maintain the ragged shreds of scientific plausibility which are all they have left after Ceeboo has blown their cover.



Chap,

You are one of the many who are absolutely convinced - no problems there. I think (?) we can still be friendly even if I am not as convinced as you are, no? After all, I am a fairly good guy who takes care of my family, treats my fellow humans with kindness and respect and I am a productive tax paying citizen. I assume you are the same.

So, given the much ore important stuff (like I listed above) I don't think that my personal skepticism around Darwinian evolution should prevent us (you and I) from living amongst one another on this earth. In my mind, this topic is fascinating and no matter what you believe about it (or I believe about it) it's still fascinating IMO and I enjoy discussing it.

That's all I have for you.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9970
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Lemmie »

I went back to some of my old emails and found the below exchange - It was sent to me by a friend a while ago. To be clear, I am not sharing it in an attempt to lend weight to my personal skepticism, rather, I am sharing it (as well as many others I could share) to illustrate what happens when you simply challenge and or question what is a widely accepted theory.
Wow ceeboo, your friend's emails exchanges get around.

https://evoillusion.org/i-debate-evillu ... at-uclauu/

There seems to be more going on here than simply challenging and questioning theories, so I looked a little further. It turns out the blogger, Steven Blume, has also self-published "The DNA Illusion," and "Evo-Illusion," along with posting his email exchanges on a blog.

He has even been reviewed on another site:
Self-Published Genius #26: The Dentist
Posted on 29-August-2013 | 101 Comments

We have another fine addition to our series about Self-Published Geniuses, where we bring you news of authors with a vanity press book in which the author claims to have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, and announces his work by hiring a press release service.

This author’s press release is issued by an outfit we’ve encountered before. It’s called PRWeb, which “gets your news straight to the search engines that everyone uses, like Google, Yahoo and Bing.” Their Pricing page reveals that their “Basic Package” costs $99. That’s probably what we’re looking at.

The press release is titled New Book Offers Groundbreaking Insights Into the Validity of Evolution. And it has a sub-title: Dr. Stephen T. Blume Shows That Evolution is Really an “Evo-illusion”

Wow — groundbreaking insights! And the author has “Dr.” in front of his name. Who is this man? At the end of the press release we’re told:

"Dr. Blume is a dentist who graduated from the University of Southern California. The courses he took at USC were more than enough to provide him with a master’s degree in biological sciences. Sparked by his visit to the Field museum, Dr. Blume began a research project on evolution, which he kept track of on his blog, http://www.evillusion.net.

Very impressive. He had enough courses “to provide him with a master’s degree in biological sciences”? Does he actually have such a degree? We’re not told. That’s okay; we don’t need to know. Let’s find out about the contents of the book. The press release says, with bold font added by us:

"For a very long time, Author Dr. Stephen T. Blume was an enthusiastic devotee and supporter of evolution. However, a visit to the Field Museum in Chicago in 2002 changed all of that. Dr. Blume wound up rejecting Charles Darwin’s theory as he discovered a new outlook on living nature and the universe."

A visit to the Field Museum of Natural History turned his life around? What happened — a bad experience in the bathroom? He doesn’t say, but we’re told:

"He shares these insights with readers everywhere in his new book, Evo-illusion."

You’ll have to buy the book to find out what went wrong at the museum. Speaking of the book, we always want to confirm that it’s published by a vanity press. That’s not difficult in this case, because at the end of the press release it says:

"For more information on self-publishing or marketing with Xlibris, visit http://www.Xlibris.com. "

Okay, we’re solidly on track. We’ve got a creationist dentist, and we’re learning about his self-published book from his press release. Everything is falling into place. Let’s read on:

"Evo-illusion tells a fascinating story of biology, astronomy, physics, particle physics, and other sciences that would certainly interest any person who reads it, no matter what their position is on evolution. It takes readers from the beginning of the universe to the emergence of the first living cells on Earth, the coming of the first multi-cellular organism, and then to the formation of modern organisms."

M’god — the ambitious sweep of this book is truly amazing! We continue:

"Dr. Blume uniquely utilizes thought experiments that the readers can easily do, which allow them to figure what may and may not have happened during the early steps on the pathway to the formation of the first living cells and multi-cellular organisms."

Thought experiments! Why didn’t we think of that? Of course — that’s the way these things should be done. Here’s the last of it:

"For readers interested in exploring new horizons, Dr. Blume’s work will definitely provide a unique perspective towards the study of life’s origins. Evo-illusion promises to enrich and broaden minds with a rich infusion of scientific knowledge and critical thinking."

But wait — we’re not done yet. We found the book’s listing at Amazon: Evo-illusion: Why IID Trumps ID and Evolution. Intriguing title. What’s “IID”? The press release doesn’t tell us.

We had to know, so we went to the author’s website and learned that IID stands for his theory of Ingenious Invention and Design, but we have no idea what that means. Hey — the book has no reviews at Amazon yet. Well, it’s new. Universal praise is sure to come.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.


[bolding added]

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17898
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by EAllusion »

Your personal incredulity is not an argument Ceeboo. If you think that the evolution of sexual reproduction is impossible because "what good is half a penis?" then it is incumbent upon you to show that it is not possible.

If you abandon that strong claim and argue that there isn't sufficient evidence that it occurred, then you get into the weeds of evolutionary biology again.

Themis
God
Posts: 13155
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Themis »

SPG wrote:Like, recently a pair of 600,000,000 year old fossils were dug up in Antarctica. They look like 6 inch fairy folk, with backbones, heads, legs, etc. This was before anyone other creature was thought to have a backbone.

I wasn't there, but I know there is effort to minimize or invalidate the find. That is the evolution theory. Their method of interpreting these facts is to ignore them, destroy them, discredit the finders, etc. I could interpret them with my own method. Like, "Ok, it's a fact, this is what means." This is exactly I don't buy into some of the "theory." Many of the methods and reasons are still political. Not like Donald Trump political, but like, "we can disagree with Dr Know it All" sort of political.


You do believe that some people make things up right? I'm curious with this example you post above what process you used to determine the accuracy of the claims being made?
42

Ceeboo
God
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Ceeboo »

Lemmie wrote:
I went back to some of my old emails and found the below exchange - It was sent to me by a friend a while ago. To be clear, I am not sharing it in an attempt to lend weight to my personal skepticism, rather, I am sharing it (as well as many others I could share) to illustrate what happens when you simply challenge and or question what is a widely accepted theory.
Wow ceeboo, your friend's emails exchanges get around.

Yeah - Blume's site is where my friend got the info he sent to me. What's your point?

There seems to be more going on here than simply challenging and questioning theories, so I looked a little further. It turns out the blogger, Steven Blume, has also self-published "The DNA Illusion," and "Evo-Illusion," along with posting his email exchanges on a blog.

There seems to me more than simply challenging and questioning theories going on to you? That's odd. His entire site (as well as his three books) do exactly that (challenge and question the theory of evolution)

Did you have any insights and/or opinions on the actual topic (evolution of sexual reproduction and/or mitosis?) or was your intention to enter the discussion for the sole purpose of trying to discredit the person providing the information - and not the actual information? Just curious.

Themis
God
Posts: 13155
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Themis »

Ceeboo wrote:Sexual reproduction is an all or none event.(Would you agree with this?) Would you say that one multi-cellular animal (A male) grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal (A female) that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen? How could perfectly matched male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a species? What microsteps and/or evolutionary processes could possibly be at play that would account for male/female sexual reproduction to occur? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The mutations and NS of one gender would have to “know” what mutations and NS were taking place for the other gender. And since there is no intelligence involved, according to most evolutionists, this scenario is not possible.


Is the appendage and fold absolutely needed for sexual reproduction, or is it just better system that makes fertilization more likely?
42

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9970
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Lemmie »

Lemmie wrote:
I went back to some of my old emails and found the below exchange - It was sent to me by a friend a while ago. To be clear, I am not sharing it in an attempt to lend weight to my personal skepticism, rather, I am sharing it (as well as many others I could share) to illustrate what happens when you simply challenge and or question what is a widely accepted theory.
Wow ceeboo, your friend's emails exchanges get around.

Ceeboo wrote:Yeah - Blume's site is where my friend got the info he sent to me. What's your point?
Just that it was Blume's site, information not in your original post.

Lemmie wrote:There seems to be more going on here than simply challenging and questioning theories, so I looked a little further. It turns out the blogger, Steven Blume, has also self-published "The DNA Illusion," and "Evo-Illusion," along with posting his email exchanges on a blog.

There seems to me more than simply challenging and questioning theories going on to you? That's odd. His entire site (as well as his three books) do exactly that (challenge and question the theory of evolution)

Did you have any insights and/or opinions on the actual topic (evolution of sexual reproduction and/or mitosis?) or was your intention to enter the discussion for the sole purpose of trying to discredit the person providing the information - and not the actual information? Just curious.

I am enjoying reading the scientific information posted, but the information provided by that blogger is not legitimate information on the topic, which was noted in the review I posted.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10509
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by honorentheos »

Ceeboo wrote:Sexual reproduction is an all or none event.(Would you agree with this?) Would you say that one multi-cellular animal (A male) grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal (A female) that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen?

No, I wouldn't say that. And it helps demonstrate why these discussions usually turn to suggestions that you read a good, general book on evolution. If you demonstrated an understanding of the basic premise of how evolutionary processes work you wouldn't ask the questions in the manner you do. Since you find the subject fascinating, one would think you'd be more than welcoming of a suggestion or two for a good read on it. Despite being close to 20 years old now, I still think you'd gain immense insight from reading Your Inner Fish that, if it doesn't convince you, would at least refine your arguments.

Anyway, it helps to recognize that male-female differentiation is not an evolutionary step that occurred in animals, let alone in one species as a all-or-nothing mutation. It also helps to recognize the evolutionary advantages that come from two organisms combining their genes such that their offspring get the "compounding interest" if you will, of both parent's beneficial mutations. The diversity of ways that gene swapping occurs in nature is much more informative than imaging the first amoeba growing a penis, approaching a female but otherwise non-sexually distinct amoeba at a bar and asking if she fancies a go in the back seat of his amoebamobile. Or however it is imagined to have worked.

ETA: Start here, ceebs.
https://byjus.com/biology/sexual-reproduction-plants/
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

Post Reply