A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BiologyForums
I think that's precisely what everyone is doing Iacchus32.

Waiting for someone (you) to post a legitimate question.

Let's not forget what forum this is okay?

I would also suggest that you stop spamming my thread.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm going to lock this topic unless someone starts talking sense.

 

OK, Greg, I'm going to buckle down...let's get some answers.

Originally posted by Iacchus32


1. A Timeline: Why is it that we've only existed as "a species" for about 10,000 years? And why all of sudden that mankind experiences this tremendous rate of growth? The likes of which doesn't seem possible for a system which is designed to progress at it's own rate -- over the eons -- where the passage of time has little or no consequence. Which thus brings up the notion of time. Why is it that only mankind, of all the species on earth, seems to be preoccupied with time? Why do "we" bother to keep a record of it? Do other species do this?

Where did you come up with the 10,000 year figure? What do you mean by 'rate of growth'? And where does perception of time fit into any of this?

Which brings up another question. Why is it that recorded history doesn't go back beyond 5,000 BC? Is it possible that there was some Great Deluge (flood) around 5,143 BC, that could have wiped everything out? This is the date that I come up with by the way, that I refer to in my Spiritual Timeline at the beginning of the thread.

The length of recorded history would depend on lots of factors, not the least of which being that they didn't know we'd be looking back 7000 years later, so for the most part wouldn't have recorded things in a fashion that could survive that long. Where did you come up with the date 5143 BCE for a flood, and what evidence do you have for it?

Another thing is where are all the missing links? There's a vast enough difference between a man and a chimp, why isn't there a whole subset species between the two? Whereas when you look at it, given the development of agriculture in Asia Minor about 10,000 years ago where, let's say we were possibly "transplanted" as a species, you know, from the Garden of Eden? wouldn't that be just about enough time to account for the difference in "evolution" of the races? Don't you think? So here we are spreading like a vine -- through agriculture -- after having been transplanted from the Garden. Hmm ... While it's funny how the date I came up with for the Advent of Adam, was 7,443 BC or, about 9,446 years ago.

There really isn't a huge difference between man and the other primates, and they came from a common ancestor, so there wouldn't be a missing link between humans and chimps. Again, you should explain where you gathered these dates from.

2. Feeling Estranged: And what of the feelings of estrangment, or the sense that we're somehow "separated" from nature? And yet it's a pretty broadly based assumption, and I think most people will readily say they feel a "distinct detachment" from nature. And what if we were "fallen creatures?" Don't you think this would be evidenced by the fact we are at odds with nature, in a constant struggle for supremeacy over it? How does that belie living in harmony with it? Is it possible evolution has run amok?

You may feel it, I certainly don't. I'm an animal and proud of it. In addition, a gut feeling should be treated as too subjective to base any conclusions about history on.

3. Man-Made vs Artificial: And indeed it would seem man has done virtually everything possible to "recreate" nature to his own liking. Whooa ... wait a second. What does this have to do with being natural, where everything "natural" about it gets by-passed? Thus by tampering with it, and not allowing nature to "run its course," we have to deal with the side-effects: overpopulation, pollution, diminishment of resources, lack of natural diversity, etc. Doesn't this sound a bit like playing God -- which, is supposedly why we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place? Hmm...

Hence it would seem "our thinking" is outside of nature which, could be the very problem right there. Meaning, we really don't know what the heck we're doing!

Beavers bypass nature when they build a dam, as do birds when they build nests. We consider their behavior natural, and I consider human building to be the exact same thing, on a larger scale. And, of course, references to an unsupported 'god' and 'eden'.

4. Nature of Addiction: If man were so in tune with his environment, then it would seem that all his basic needs should be easily satiated. Or for that matter, why would he require anything more than what was basic? -- which of course he doesn't. And yet why do we seem to be addicted to everything uner the sun? Why all the alcohol, the cigarettes, the drugs, the religion, pornography, the food, fancy cars, fancy houses, the latest fashions, music fanatics, sports fanatics? Why do we "worship" movie idols and what not? Why all the extravagance?

Actually, this is easily explained by evolution. We want more than we need, because we thing of resourses the same way as food, that we should stockpile for a later time.

5. Spiritual vs Natural: So why do we seem to be so out of control? Could it be because we don't know how to live in harmony with ourselves, because we're spiritual beings and weren't meant to be a part of nature? Whereas through our addictions we try to conceal any possible "guilt feelings" associated with our fallen nature? Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible? Have you ever seen a monkey psychiatrist, a monkey doctor, or a monkey lawyer? Unless of course you wish to refer to us humans. Do you ever think a lion will doubt that it's lion? Or a fish doubt that it's a fish? It seems highly unlikely, otherwise -- much like us -- it would be in conflict with its environment.

So you see if we understood that our stay here was only temporary, and that indeed a spiritual reality does exist, then perhaps we would be less inclined to fulfill our every "material whim," and stop ravaging the damn planet!


Well, that's pretty much what I've touched on so far (and then some), and I honestly don't see how anyone can come across saying I have no foundation for what I have to say. Do you? [/B]

You ask a lot of questions, but you don't give us much in the way of support for your answers, if you see what I mean? You should really do some serious studying of what people who are experts in evolution, anthropology, and psycholgy have to say, and rethink all of this. You ask a lot of questions; you should take a break from it and make an honest attempt at finding the answers.
The reason why we say you have no foundation(besides you not having a foundation!) is because you have presented little but unsupported supposition. You have a lot of ideas, but that isn't the end of things, it is the very first baby step. Now, you have to go find evidence to support your ideas, and be willing to toss them all in the trash if they are proven incorrect.

With all the questions you have, I don't expect you'll have any more time to post, will you?

 

[Iacchus32]

Timeline Evidence?

Check this out Zero!

From the thread, The Battle of the Prophecies ...

Originally posted by Another God
Does anyone have information about when, in history, the Jews have had all of their sacrifice capabilites taken away from them? By invasion, by slavery, by whatever. How often does this happen? Has it happened at all? etc

You asked for a specific time frame for when the daily sacrifice was taken away? Then this seems to be referring to that here. And yet, I'm not sure it's even the same prophecy? However, you might be intrigued to find out what I've discovered below ... and all I can say is wow!

Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great. And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. (Daniel 8:3-14).

Doesn't this kind of sound like the rise of Greece (the he goat) during the 6th century BC? Who, after the Jews were released and allowed to return to their homeland (beginning in 538 BC), got into a scuffle with Persia (i.e., the ram) and eventually conquered them in 479 BC (have a chapter in my book named after that number by the way) before entering and Hellenizing the Holy Land via the conquests of Alexander?

Whereas when you think about it -- "the Jews" -- who, didn't actually exist as a people until after The Captivity, have been under the dominion of someone else ever since their release. So in this respect they haven't been allowed to worship "their God" in the way that they deem fit, in which case you could say their daily sacrifice was taken away.

And, since the Jews were dispersed after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, you could say this condition has existed since just prior to their release from Babylon, let's come up with a date say, 543 BC -- which, if we extend by 2,300 years (remember the day for a year thing?), we come up with the year 1757 BC. And guess what? This is the very year that the Last Judgment -- as foretold in the book of Revelation -- was supposed to occur, and a "New Heaven and Earth" were formed (more so in the spiritual world), hence the establishment of the "New Church." And so it is the "Christian Era," which has existed since 543 BC, i.e., under the dominion of someone else (and remember, Jesus was a Jew), has now come to a close, and the Jews are no longer under its dominion.

All of which has been thoroughly detailed through the works of Emanuel Swedenborg, the gifted Swedish scientist, theologian and, mystic. If you refer to the first two chapters of my book -- yes, here we are talking about my book again -- I go into further detail about it. While it also happens to be the same period that I speak about on my Spiritual Timeline thread. How strange? Hmm ... Maybe I can get you to take a look at it afterall? Now wouldn't that be something!


Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 5

 

Quoting a book of fairy tales doesn't answer my specific questions. Nice try, though. Plus, nothing you posted to that thread makes any sense. If you already believe, ramblings about goats and horns will sound like whatever you want them to mean...can you PLEASE get back to natural selection?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Quoting a book of fairy tales doesn't answer my specific questions. Nice try, though. Plus, nothing you posted to that thread makes any sense. If you already believe, ramblings about goats and horns will sound like whatever you want them to mean...can you PLEASE get back to natural selection?

Would like to but I'm too tired. [zz)] Spent most of the evening working on this other post. Wasn't even aware that your post was here until after I posted the "Timeline Evidence?" post above. Will have to get to it tomorrow, Okay?

 

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would like to but I'm too tired. [zz)] Spent most of the evening working on this other post. Wasn't even aware that your post was here until after I posted the "Timeline Evidence?" post above. Will have to get to it tomorrow, Okay?

I'll be waiting...shall I attempt to secure some LSD, in order for us to be on the same wavelength?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I'll be waiting...shall I attempt to secure some LSD, in order for us to be on the same wavelength?

Now why did you say that?

If you mean Lucifer, Satan and the Devil, and that's the drug of your choice, then I'll leave it up to you.

 

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now why did you say that?

If you mean Lucifer, Satan and the Devil, and that's the drug of your choice, then I'll leave it up to you.

Why would I waste my time trying to find things that don't exist? That's YOUR job!

I'll be waiting for your reply in the morning.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
OK, Greg, I'm going to buckle down...let's get some answers.

Where did you come up with the 10,000 year figure? What do you mean by 'rate of growth'? And where does perception of time fit into any of this?

The date coincides with the Advent of Modern Man just after the Ice Age and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor. Also note that I had already come up with the date, and it was more a matter plotting it in accord with the events of history. If you read my Timeline thread --which, nobody seems to want to do? -- this should pretty much answer how I came up with the dates.

As for the rate of growth, I'm referring to our arriving from a "natural state," and the onset of technology (development of agriculture), with its rapid acceleration and tremendous growth rate in population, to where it's practically seized control and we can no longer recognize what's natural anymore. In other words I'm speaking of this incredible transformation which has taken place since our arrival 10,000 years ago.

The length of recorded history would depend on lots of factors, not the least of which being that they didn't know we'd be looking back 7000 years later, so for the most part wouldn't have recorded things in a fashion that could survive that long. Where did you come up with the date 5143 BCE for a flood, and what evidence do you have for it?

Again I would refer you to my Timeline thread. Besides that, if there were a flood it would have to occur prior to 5,000 BC, otherwise we would have a clearer record of it. While here's the beginning of Ivan Seeking's thread, Believers in the lost Ark: Guardian, UK, which only seems to corroborate it.

"The explorer who discovered the Titanic beneath the Atlantic in 1985 is setting out on another underwater expedition to document Noah's flood. The Black Sea was originally a freshwater lake that in ancient times became inundated by the salty Mediterranean. Robert Ballard believes that this was a cataclysmic event that occurred about 7,500 years ago, and was possibly the deluge described in the Bible."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/...1015350,00.html [Broken]

And note, when you subtract 7,500 from 2003 you get 5497 BC which, is only a difference of 357 years, which is not much!

There really isn't a huge difference between man and the other primates, and they came from a common ancestor, so there wouldn't be a missing link between humans and chimps. Again, you should explain where you gathered these dates from.

And yet there's nothing about the primates that suggest they live "outside" of their environment, and don't exist as an adaptation to the environment, as opposed to getting the environment to adapt to them, which is what mankind has done.

You may feel it, I certainly don't. I'm an animal and proud of it. In addition, a gut feeling should be treated as too subjective to base any conclusions about history on.

Then how do you feel about being tied or "immersed" in the natural world? Is there anything about your world which is not "unnatural?" While I think the closest thing here would be if we all returned to subsistent farming (or such), although we would still be dependent upon technology, which I guess I'm saying we use as a crutch. Hey don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating this!

Beavers bypass nature when they build a dam, as do birds when they build nests. We consider their behavior natural, and I consider human building to be the exact same thing, on a larger scale. And, of course, references to an unsupported 'god' and 'eden'.

I don't see what's so unnatural about chewing trees with your teeth and swabbing mud with your tail, both of which have clearly adapted to suit the purpose. While man on the other hand, says, "Well, I just came up this incredible idea, what do you say we get out the heavey equipment and tear up the joint? Forget about the consequences, what are they? Just do it!" And all because of a whim? Hmm ... Which is why I ask, what does this have to do with Natural Selection? And you can take this to mean I don't agree, Okay? Hence we come up with the notion of artifical or man-made. Indeed it is!

Actually, this is easily explained by evolution. We want more than we need, because we thing of resourses the same way as food, that we should stockpile for a later time.

What? Man-made versus natural? You can take that to mean I don't think so.

You ask a lot of questions, but you don't give us much in the way of support for your answers, if you see what I mean? You should really do some serious studying of what people who are experts in evolution, anthropology, and psycholgy have to say, and rethink all of this. You ask a lot of questions; you should take a break from it and make an honest attempt at finding the answers.

Actually my asking questions is more a matter of technique, in part, because I don't typically rely on other people for answers, while it's also a means by which to "corral the answer" so to speak. It's like conducting any investigation really, where you ask a lot of questions in order to narrow in on the answer. Whereas by my askings questions here, I'm making you privy to the type of questions I've had to ask, while guiding you towards the answer (or conclusion). Maybe it's not the best technique? But, it works for me.

The reason why we say you have no foundation(besides you not having a foundation!) is because you have presented little but unsupported supposition. You have a lot of ideas, but that isn't the end of things, it is the very first baby step. Now, you have to go find evidence to support your ideas, and be willing to toss them all in the trash if they are proven incorrect.

It's like I said, the questions are designed to support the answer.

With all the questions you have, I don't expect you'll have any more time to post, will you?

What do you feel like you're missing out on something?

 

*edit*

I'm done here...

 

[Iacchus32]

Sorry, it looks like I missed a couple of things here. I can assure you it wasn't intentional though. However, I somehow suspect you're not going to like what I have to say anyway?

Originally posted by Zero

You ask a lot of questions, but you don't give us much in the way of support for your answers, if you see what I mean? You should really do some serious studying of what people who are experts in evolution, anthropology, and psycholgy have to say, and rethink all of this. You ask a lot of questions; you should take a break from it and make an honest attempt at finding the answers.

Well, you started this out by what seems to be your "major complaint" against me, so I thought I would try to give you a better idea of my approach. In which case I didn't catch the part below ...

As for these so-called experts, perhaps we should have them rethink what their doing and pursue "spiritual things" instead? Is there a difference here? Perhaps you should be reminded that this is the Religion Forum as well.

The reason why we say you have no foundation(besides you not having a foundation!) is because you have presented little but unsupported supposition. You have a lot of ideas, but that isn't the end of things, it is the very first baby step. Now, you have to go find evidence to support your ideas, and be willing to toss them all in the trash if they are proven incorrect.

And here, I just read the first part and continued with what I said above. It's like I said, the questions are designed to highlight the conclusion.

Also, if you undersood who I was personally, you would understand that I don't go around doing things arbitrarily. You would also know that I'm pretty observant, nor do I make a lot of mistakes. So you can take this to be a reflection of how I come up with my ideas.

Well, I don't know if that helps or not, but you can't say I didn't try. Thanks.

 

Instead of having 'questions highlight the conclusions', you might want to try evidence.
NOW I'm done here, don't bother to reply.

 

[Iacchus32]

Evidence of God?

Now there are a great many things in this Universe that we don't know about. But that does not mean they don't exist. There are "factual things" which we do know, and there are "factual things" which we don't know. Which is to say, a fact remains a fact, irregardless.

And yet it's entirely possible for one person or, perhaps a whole group of people (due to the "fact" we're all part of the human condition -- this is the key here ), to ascertain a certain fact (or facts) that others are incapable of. And so the real issue becomes, at what point does a fact become knowable?

Indeed, it would be much easier if it could be accepted uniformly and by everyone. Then there would be no point to disagree. But what if there was a fact that only "one" person knew about, nor do I mean a fact specific to that one person, but a general fact that affected everyone? Does this mean the fact is unknowable or, not ascertainable by anyone else? Should it? If one person can ascertain it, then chances are others can ascertain it as well.

And yet what if it were one of those things which are not readily ascertainable, say like the notion of God? Of course this is probably why it's not widely accepted by everyone -- or, in the case of many who have accepted it, they may have accepted it "blindly" -- but should that have any bearing on whether or not God exists? Should it? The fact is, He either exists or He doesn't exist.

If this is the case, and God does exist, then there should also be "characteristic evidence" to support it. Or how else could you identify it? And yet the problem is, that unless you make the discovery yourself, being that it's not readily ascertained, you may not be able to associate the evidence with the facts. Although it's still evidence! In which case you may have all the evidence in the world -- which I suggest we do if we're speaking about God by the way -- but, unless one is able to make the association, nothing is going to happen.

So what does it mean? Especially when one person presents the evidence and another charges that there is no evidence, when it's really a matter of not being able to make the association? Hmm ... Is it anybody's fault really? I wouldn't think so. So why all the accusations then? Could it be because it has something to do with the notion of God, where the evidence could very well be right under our noses? ... Now that is a distinct possibility!

 

[Phobos]

Each person needs to research and weigh the evidences for him/herself. But be sure to pack along a set of good intellectual tools to figure out which are good and which are bad arguments.

 

[Iacchus32]

Just a couple of things from the thread, Just checking in on the fish, in case anybody wanted to get back on topic here ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you suggesting that there's a flaw in the theory of evolution then, in the sense that we haven't really adapted to the environment, as much as we've gotten it to adapt to us, to whatever it is that "suits our fancy?"

While all we have to do is think about something and bam, here we have the next Hoover Dam! Or, a new freeway interchange ... or, a new sky-scraper ... or, some new synthetic material ...

And, while it may not be such a big deal if these things were allowed to evolve over the eons, as adaptations, like the rest of mother nature, this is not the way it's happened. In fact the whole thing seems to have mushroomed up overnight, like some widespread fungus or disease, while ravaging everything in its sight.

Whereas just like any other "deluded" parasite, it has the gall to say, our relationship has evolved "naturally," and is strictly "symbiotic."

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Iacchus32, I was going to say this 10 times before, but I did not but since you are aware of what I a referring to you would be able to continue the projection. In past evoulution, the amount and diversity of life was 10 fold of what it is today. The distinction rate is far beyond the rate of new species and of the species that are left the ability to for them to mutate over a period of time to adapt is beyond any curve. The rate of land consumption and encroachment of society has caused stresses beyond what is realized because it has not yet be thought about yet. Cows, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, rats snakes and birds. That is what will be left. Oh, yes and farm raised fish which may be killed off due to the inability of natural selection to take it's course which will weaken the stock and cause it to have to be maniplated via chemicals, DNA, etc...

There is no symbiotic relationship.

There are things I know that I have not even spoken or alluded to on this forum.

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok now I understand- enviornmentalism. I guess yes we can actually be seen as a "virus", consuming all natural resources, changing the ecology of the Earth to suit us, and generally wreaking havoc on our surroundings instead of living in harmony with it like the rest of the life on this planet has done.

Doesn't it seem like a bit of paradox that that which is touted to be the most highly evolved species on the planet, is no better than the lowliest form of viral scum in terms of its impact? How is that possible? Isn't mother nature supposed to be elvoving further and further towards a higher standard of perfection? And so what does that do, make us freaks to the entire evolutionary process? Or, is it possible that we've been "put here" to fulfill some other purpose? Hmm ...

Originally posted by steppenwolf
why does it always come down to some problem with 'mother nature'? like something went wrong, what did hesse say? 'man is the failed abortion of mother nature' or something similar, it's poetic but so self centered. I'm sorry but what makes us the most highly evolved species? i have some flea friends who would stronly contest our inability to jump more then our height, and we can't even breathe under water? pathetic, we break so easily, look down at your wrist, veins showing through your pale skin, how easy it is to die

All I'm suggesting is that maybe we're not "native" to this environment, that in fact we have done a piss-poor job of adapting so far, as you yourself seem to suggest. While the last thing I would do is blame it on mother nature.

Originally posted by Royce
Why are any of you surprised or puzzeled? We are nature, a part of nature and as any species respond to our environment just like any other species. In biology there is no such thing as a stable population. Species multiply under favorable conditions and die off under unfavorable conditions.

There's nothing about our existence here that suggests we've adapted to our environment. For example take a beaver, which has developed a broad tail for swabbing mud and sharp teeth for chewing on trees, thus making him a "specialist" for building dams. There's nothing about man, the "naked ape," to suggest any specialized form of behavior, which has allowed him to evolve and adapt to his environment. Even the apes themselves, seem well suited to what mother nature has provided, and find no need whatsoever to live "outside" of her domain.

P.S. What is the first story in the book of Genesis by the way? Don't you think that might possibly have some bearing on this?

Also, feel free to look into the Spiritual Timeline thread, which seems to concur with the "Dawn of Civilization" which occurred about 10,000 years ago.

 

The point about adaptation is that our species is extremely adapatable. Rather than being very specialised to work in a specific environment only, such as the beaver, we are suited to many different environments. Our strength as a species lies precisely with this ability to wider adaption, rather than any specific and limited specialisations.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by I, Brian
The point about adaptation is that our species is extremely adapatable. Rather than being very specialised to work in a specific environment only, such as the beaver, we are suited to many different environments. Our strength as a species lies precisely with this ability to wider adaption, rather than any specific and limited specialisations.

What that suggests to me is that we really haven't adapted at all. What kind of an adaptation is an adaption on a whim so to speak? Sounds to me like we want to have our cake and eat it too, rather than allow Mother Nature to its course and allow us to "truly adapt." And the environment is paying the price for it!

But then again, like I say, may there's a different reason for us being here?