• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

It's really a pretty simple question, I don't understand why you are avoiding it. Can you at least answer why you refuse to answer? Are you afraid it's some kind of trap? I assure you it isn't a trap, it's like asking what's the rate of acceleration of gravity or the mass of the moon, it's not a dangerous question.

How many mutations do you think there are between your parents and you?

I'll even give you multiple choices.

a) 1 or less
b) 10
c) 100
d) 1,000
e) 10,000
f) 100,000 or more

I've seen several sources which claim that a human normally suffers 100-200 accumulated mutations in their germ cells over their lifetime. This could be interpreted as the amount of mutations sent from one generation to the next per person, given suitable assumptions, with possible ranges of an order of magnitude in each direction depending on age of parents at birth, radiation and chemical environment, general health and so on.

These rates are based on the following general considerations (from wiki, "mutation rates"):

More generally, the mutation rate in eukaryotes is in generally 10^−4 to 10^−6 mutations per base pair per generation[4], and for bacteria the rate is around 10^−8 per base pair per generation[5]. The highest mutation rates are found in viruses, which can have either RNA or DNA genomes. DNA viruses have mutation rates between 10−6 to 10−8 mutations per base per generation, and RNA viruses have mutation rates between 10^−3 to 10^−5 per base per generation[5]. Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimated to have mutation rates of ~3×10^−6 or ~2.7×10^−5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation)[6]; these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10^−8 per base per generation[1].

RNA has a drastically higher mutation rate than DNA because of several DNA repair systems that can correct changes before they become fixed in the genome as mutations.[7]
 
Last edited:
That reminds me, my wife and I had a similar experience. We had a set of car keys we both used occasionally, for a car only about a year old. We hadn't dropped them, stepped on them, damaged them or done anything unusual, and the locks all worked easily.

I put the key in the trunk to open it one day, it worked normally and the trunk opened right away, but my wife pointed out as soon as I let go that the key was bent. I pulled it out, and sure enough, it was obviously bent to one side. The trunk had unlocked easily so I knew I hadn't put any more than normal light pressure on the key.

We both thought, "huh," decided that at some point the key had been damaged or turned harder than normal even though we didn't remember it, and bent it back with a hammer on cement. I'd forgotten about the whole incident until now.

Same kind of mystery. Yet it didn't have the context of a paranormal situation--no frustration or emotion, no shock, just a mild puzzle. Misremembered damage? Weak metal? The ability to bend keys with my mind before an average grocery trip? Who knows.

I think it shows, though, that a lot of odd stuff happens in life, but the incident itself isn't as significant as the person's reaction to it.
No. Its not odd at all. You just listed the two best possible explanations.
 
Last edited:
Radrook:

I said I would respond to your earlier post (linky), and I will. Probably either today or tomorrow.

However, it would help me immensely if you could link to some of the works you feel support ID.
Otherwise, I shall have to respond to whatever ID proponent claims I happen to find. I have no problem with this, and will attempt to be as fair and balanced as possible. But I am also aware that it would leave the door open for you to say that those aren't the ones you were referring to.

I'd like to avoid that mess, if I can.

So please provide a link the arguments you feel best support ID.

Otherwise, any complaints about me selecting the wrong sources will be met with "Tough. I gave you the opportunity to provide sources, and you didn't take it."
 
I don't think this can really be described as adopting as his own - but it's not that important...
Okay we can agree it bears some passing resemblance to something which might be described as an evolutionary theory.
The fuller quote is :
There is clear disagreement between "person", singular and "them", plural; "animal" is potentially ambiguous - it could refer to an individual or act as a group noun.
In the process of reading through the text, it is possible to correct this disagreement by either ignoring the parenthetical inclusion, or substituting "it" for "them". Given that the function of parentheses is to provide
additional information not central to the substance of the sentence, the former was my, subconsciously, preferred option. It's now clear that others felt otherwise.
I think it was poorly proofread...which isn't to say there aren't a lot of actual misunderstandings going on to. But I can at least where your point is coming from.
I don't see any specific mention of reinforcement. I can read the same thing and interpret it in terms of a consistent selective pressure.
It discusses a population, an admittedly very small population, for Gedankenexperiment-type purposes, but nonetheless it is discussed in the context of a population
Okay, but that would make it not specifically Darwinian - it doesn't demonstrate it's Lamarckian.
As vaguely phrased as it is, it's not a specifically Lamarckian concept. It's a long climb up a fitness slope from no gills, to gills. In Darwinian terms the force driving the population up the slope is provided by natural selection in the context of the environmental influences.
This is getting complicated - but let me try and tease this apart.
The idea of a fully functional complex organ appearing de novo, as a result of
a single mutation isn't Darwinian, it's Goldschmidtian, (Gould has a few caveats on that, but none that I think are particularly relevant.)
If it were Darwinian, Radrook's post nevers mentions differences in likelihood between pearl-divers and nomads, so this can't be used as an argument to show it's anti-Darwinian.
Then again, without the assumption of a single mutation, a whole sequence of mutation-selection-mutation events are required. That is more likely to happen in a situation where selection acts in favour of the possession of gills, than in one where it's selected against.
Thank you for your detailed and thought-provoking response to the question I posed. I may disagree with the conclusions you and others have drawn, but I appreciate the effort you've put into expressing them clearly. If I now had to attach an epithet to the evolutionary 'theory' described in Radrook's post I'd put it down as Buffonian, which would put it nearer 200 years out-of-date. The mechanism is simply not explained in sufficient detail to characterise it as anything more substantive than that.

I see your point; but, it seems to me that the quote does to great length to show that it is the lifestyle that does produce the change with is Lamarckian.
But, my ultimate analysis is that the author was not speaking of one in particular among the various suggested theories that had been offered. Rather, it presented his own, grossly misunderstood version of what he thought the evolutionary theory was about. So he used some misapplied terms he picked from modern neo-Darwinian theories and applied them to poorly grasped concepts that resemble more what Lamarckism was all about. And, you are right, his parody of the theory of evolution does seem to invoke abrupt changes more similar to Goldschmidtian theories...

So, it seems to me like a the quoted author attacks a hotchpotch of poorly understood, poorly represented theories claiming it to be the modern theory o evolution.
Less than inspired by Buffon; this writings seem, to me, to be that of a buffoon!
 
The thread should be, "100 Reasons Why Some People Don't Get Evolution".

Something to do with not really wanting to be part of this world and its life, and thinking that some so-called god makes them better.

Just look how we kill each other, must be a third rate so-called god at best.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
"Rubber like" is fine, I understand. It is still not possible in the real world. If it had been that hot, it would be discolored.
I don't know if it is worth the effort. I believe you believe this, but it is not possible, Edge, that a piece of metal can become rubbery because of some emanations from the mind.

Yes I agree it should not be possible. There was no discoloration.

Too bad you lost it. Is there any chance you were suffering from the heat, and frustration? I have no explanation for what you experienced, but I do know that what Geller claims is just lies. He uses magic tricks. It takes considerable 'power' to bend steel. Human minds cannot send this kind of power...it just is not physically possible.
No Just frustration. The houses that I did were on the average about 300 lineal feet, I got paid by the foot, this house as I remember was small, about 225 feet or so, it was the size where you get off early and kind of take a loss on.

Also I called it the house of corners, that slows you down, it sat on the other side of a barrier island, lots of driving to get to it, down U.S.1 to a causeway to get to the other side then down a ways to the house.

That’s a loss too but you have to take it like that sometimes as a favor.

There are always hoaxers that ruin thins in any thing considered paranormal, which nullifies real studies.
I knew all that even at that time, that people like Geller, were fakes.



There is such a thing as "false memory" too. It has happened to me. Some weird combination of dreams and experiences and embellishing on the experience.

We do not certainly know everything about the world, but I am certain that the mind cannot bend metal.
"Grounding" has nothing to do with anything. You cannot just have this either/or (grounded or mind) type of mindset here.

I thought I was certain too.
I would think that grounding might, earth energy’s seeping in to the house or lightning strikes near by. But none of that was happening.

You can’t dream when working like this or you probably would start to cut fingers off with the tools trip and fall ect…you have to be fully aware of your surroundings and obstacles at the site, I couldn’t afford to miss work.

It was a regular regiment.
No dreams, no false memories, just an easier normal day, no heat exestuation either, just frustration.

I don't think it sounds "crazy", Edge, but it sounds like you don't understand physics at all. Making these claims when you have no evidence for them, and you lost the "magic driver" that could have changed the world of physics, is a little on the crazy side though. The bend point could have been analyzed and it could have been proven that the metal had been heated, or not, at this point.

Trust me it wasn’t heated, but I thought it was.

The dry wall guy would have dropped it; I know this because I have worked with metals now and before then in steel mills, which would have been obvious.
We do a lot of metal type work now, we use torches and welders, different kinds for all the different metals, all the time now.

I think you should carefully consider if perhaps somehow, not sure how, you could be mistaken about the "rubbery" nature of the metal. I'm trying my best here to help out.:confused:

It was two feet away from my face at first I thought my eyes are crossed, till I looked closer and focused and re-focused, moving in closer and backing off.


That reminds me, my wife and I had a similar experience. We had a set of car keys we both used occasionally, for a car only about a year old. We hadn't dropped them, stepped on them, damaged them or done anything unusual, and the locks all worked easily.

I put the key in the trunk to open it one day, it worked normally and the trunk opened right away, but my wife pointed out as soon as I let go that the key was bent. I pulled it out, and sure enough, it was obviously bent to one side. The trunk had unlocked easily so I knew I hadn't put any more than normal light pressure on the key.

We both thought, "huh," decided that at some point the key had been damaged or turned harder than normal even though we didn't remember it, and bent it back with a hammer on cement. I'd forgotten about the whole incident until now.

Same kind of mystery. Yet it didn't have the context of a paranormal situation--no frustration or emotion, no shock, just a mild puzzle. Misremembered damage? Weak metal? The ability to bend keys with my mind before an average grocery trip? Who knows.

I think it shows, though, that a lot of odd stuff happens in life, but the incident itself isn't as significant as the person's reaction to it.

The difference between you and I is, that what you describe has also happened to me with keys, but in my instance I got to see it happening.

That driver wasn’t weak at all, matter of fact it was the strongest I had at the time, I destroyed many drivers usually breaking the handles.
You may have slammed it with the trunk lid and it may have fell in after or when you opened it.
Had I not seen it happening I wouldn’t even had brought it up?

I made three movies and I can’t get them on U-Tube through this new computer.
When I try, my computer is telling me I need a high-speed USB port to up-load it on here first.
My old one has one so I have to operate on two computers to do it.
That may take a little time, but I will get it done soon.
Hopefully they are compatible it was an add-on to the old computer for the same reason.
I didn’t think that this computer would need it.

(My mind set at the time)

I replaced the piece once with a piece of scrap J channel I had on my truck, I couldn’t do that again with out coming back to the house that would have been a loss, a loss in fuel and in time.
I had to be really careful on my next attempt, and I was.
I remember going to the truck for it and that’s when the chisel fell out, so I used the driver as a back up, for this part of the application the chisel worked better.

Using the driver that was still in my tool belt saved me a walk again and time.
In my mind I was thinking don’t ruin the J and what was ruined was the driver it’s like there was a barrier and the screw driver was compensating for the force that I was applying.
I was applying a slight down ward pressure and sliding it along the J channel to get it in.
The place on the driver that bent was nowhere near the J or the tip of the screwdriver.

At one point after the incident I realized that the last piece was about an eighth of an inch too wide and after ripping it down again that it would lock in, which it did that is because the carpenters did not have the entry way square. So one side of that last piece was wider slightly, than the other.


What we do when running a house down here in hell is, to run in the shadow of the house and I have had heat effect me and my helper before, but that’s when the house is over 400 lineal feet an average house of 300 feet usually is no problem, as long as we time the sun and shadows correctly and you get there early enough to beat the heat.

There is always one side of the house you have to run in the sunshine, if your fast enough there’s no problem relief comes from the shadow when you get back in it, and entry way is in the shadow of itself always.

I don’t consider my self-special or anything but when I review the things in my life that I have witnessed I have to wonder.
My main thought is, what are our brains and we evolving towards?
 
The thread should be, "100 Reasons Why Some People Don't Get Evolution".

Something to do with not really wanting to be part of this world and its life, and thinking that some so-called god makes them better.

Just look how we kill each other, must be a third rate so-called god at best.

Paul

:) :) :)
{Bolding mine}
Wow you finally said something that makes sense, now think why is that?
Your so-called Atheism is just that? Because it’s just a matter of time, if you think evolution is proof of there being no so-called God your delusional.
 
{Bolding mine}
Wow you finally said something that makes sense, now think why is that?
Your so-called Atheism is just that? Because it’s just a matter of time, if you think evolution is proof of there being no so-called God your delusional.
Your so-called god answer to everything is to kill, read your so-called good book edge.

This is the only life edge, I'm not about to go to war and get killed so I can become nothing. That only works for people that think they go on.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
{Bolding mine}
Wow you finally said something that makes sense, now think why is that?
Your so-called Atheism is just that? Because it’s just a matter of time, if you think evolution is proof of there being no so-called God your delusional.

What are you trying to say?

I have a real problem trying to make sense out of this, and most of the other groups of words you string together.

Nobody has offered evolution theory as proof of the non-existence of god -- at least no one who understands evolution theory.
 
What are you trying to say?

I have a real problem trying to make sense out of this, and most of the other groups of words you string together.

Nobody has offered evolution theory as proof of the non-existence of god -- at least no one who understands evolution theory.
Right, it shows that there is no need of a so-called god, that doesn't explain anything anyway. Just the so-called puff and it happens BS.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
{Bolding mine}
Wow you finally said something that makes sense, now think why is that?
Your so-called Atheism is just that? Because it’s just a matter of time, if you think evolution is proof of there being no so-called God your delusional.

Try me with that one Edge, we all know you have issues with Atheists, so what would you say to a pantheist who believes in Evolution
I don't think that the scientifically proven theory of Evolution (which is also a fact) in any way damages my belief structure, why is yours so fragile that in your eyes it is damaged by science, doesn't your God do science either ?

would you moderate your response to indicate your lack of intellectual width when it comes to insults ?
:p

btw, evolution is a theory which explains how things change, theres nothing about proving or disproving God involved in it, it destroys the ID argument yes, but then the ID argument is clearly fallacious anyway.

You don't think that your God is smart enough to come up with animals that change with the environment then I guess its up to you to explain why your god was so stupid as to invent changing environments in the first place
is he that stupid Edge ?
really ?
:D
 
Try me with that one Edge, we all know you have issues with Atheists, so what would you say to a pantheist who believes in Evolution
I don't think that the scientifically proven theory of Evolution (which is also a fact) in any way damages my belief structure, why is yours so fragile that in your eyes it is damaged by science, doesn't your God do science either ?

would you moderate your response to indicate your lack of intellectual width when it comes to insults ?
:p

btw, evolution is a theory which explains how things change, theres nothing about proving or disproving God involved in it, it destroys the ID argument yes, but then the ID argument is clearly fallacious anyway.

You don't think that your God is smart enough to come up with animals that change with the environment then I guess its up to you to explain why your god was so stupid as to invent changing environments in the first place
is he that stupid Edge ?
really ?
:D

I'm glad to see you think that way.
I just like pushing Pauls buttons, To see if he will say something different.


This is the only life edge, I'm not about to go to war and get killed so I can become nothing. That only works for people that think they go on.

Paul
But you stated before you have and killed thousands, as Christian I haven't killed anyone I avoid it like a plague when I know the reasons are unjust, so you must have been in war.
I asked you before to explain, but all I got was Crickets?
 
What are you trying to say?

, and most of the other groups of words you string together.

Nobody has offered evolution theory as proof of the non-existence of god -- at least no one who understands evolution theory.

Likewise, I have a real problem trying to make sense out of this?
Ok so you all have changed on your stance, is that right?
There is a possibility of a god?
Do I understand your take on evolution?
I don't see a problem with evolution or science.
Does not exclude God.
 
Last edited:
But you stated before you have and killed thousands, as Christian I haven't killed anyone I avoid it like a plague when I know the reasons are unjust, so you must have been in war.
I asked you before to explain, but all I got was Crickets?

That is right edge, it was called a WAR, Vietnam. It was done by a so-called Christian Nation that learned well from it black book on how to deal with others that don't fit you way of thinking.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Likewise, I have a real problem trying to make sense out of this?
Ok so you all have changed on your stance, is that right?
There is a possibility of a god?
Do I understand your take on evolution?
I don't see a problem with evolution or science.
Does not exclude God.
And a so-called god isn't needed. With a so-called god being anything a person whats it to be explains nothing, it brings nothing to the table of understanding. Can you understand that.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Likewise, I have a real problem trying to make sense out of this?
Ok so you all have changed on your stance, is that right?
There is a possibility of a god?
Do I understand your take on evolution?
I don't see a problem with evolution or science.
Does not exclude God.

^^Exactly as written. :boggled:

Someone may have asked before. Is English your native language?
 
Not Haiku,
But looks to have some
Poetic structure
I know not what it is
 
I don’t consider my self-special or anything but when I review the things in my life that I have witnessed I have to wonder.

The last part of that sentence contradicts the first part.
 

Back
Top Bottom