Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
    I have nothing against religions, per se. I have issues with religions that teach that we're flawed beings in need of salvation of some type or flavor to escape the misery of life on this planet. Unfortunately, this describes all the major religions of Eastern and Western civilizations. I'm in love with the old religion(s) of tribal peoples (animism) whose gods live here and whose earthly (only) lives have meaning, rather than being preludes to some kind of afterlife.
    I have the same issue with Eastern and Western religions, they are all so down on this life. It's no wonder the earth is being trashed, and then there are the sci-fi science worshipers who think that when we make the earth uninhabitable we can just immigrate another planet. I am more of an animist, this whole place is sacred and learning about science only reinforces to me how amazing and beautiful it all is.
    Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
      Richard Dawkins LOL! Shallow bibelbelt Americans needed an atheist boogeyman to scare them into firmer faith and a shallow atheist, biologist and philosopher wannabee stepped on the soapbox to help them! If Dawkins had just let the naive American christians alone, then we would not have noticed them much, at least not outside their own country...
      This is a lot like when someone repeats a joke, incorrectly, that he misunderstood to begin with. You really should actually read some Dawkins before you decide to dismiss him. At least look up his list of works instead of basing your entire opinion on The God Delusion, which is a book I liked, but is not in any way a microcosm of the whole of his work.
      The Champagne of Beards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
        I have the same issue with Eastern and Western religions, they are all so down on this life. It's no wonder the earth is being trashed, and then there are the sci-fi science worshipers who think that when we make the earth uninhabitable we can just immigrate another planet. I am more of an animist, this whole place is sacred and learning about science only reinforces to me how amazing and beautiful it all is.
        Yeah x 100. That's not to say that I hate people who are religious. But I hate the fact that their only choices for experiencing spirituality are religions that teach that their earthly lives are devoid of meaning and wonder, and that the earth is not man's true home/a sacred place.
        The Champagne of Beards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
          Somehow, I think Derp is of the belief that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian natural selection mandates that a member of one species produces an offspring that's not a member of its own species. Humans growing wings is obviously a ridiculous example to ask. I think he fails to understand, perhaps, that a mutation occurs, in rare instances, that confers a survival advantage (a survival advantage to the genes, via the individual, whether this means it can resist being killed better, hunt prey better, attract mates better, whatever). But it's only with dozens or hundreds or more generations that a distinct gene pool becomes apparent. This is what's so beautifully illustrated by ring species. It's sort of like a cross-section of speciation that we can see concurrently. A gives rise to B, but B and A are hard to distinguish and can easily interbreed. B gives rise to C, C to D, D to E, which happens to be in a territory adjacent to A's. But while the neighbors can all mate and the "line" between species is blurred at every point around the ring, A and E are clearly distinct, and can't and don't mate at all. Or maybe he's just making up a lot of words to describe things he doesn't understand in a way that he thinks can confuse us. I'm not claiming to be a biologist. Laz and tp and a few of the other posters here seem more equipped to address this than I am, but despite all the words he's used, he's failed to make his objection clear. Like he thinks species and genes are some type of truly distinct and impenetrable units, which is, to my dilettante's understanding, not the case at all. Distinct species are only distinct with the conceit of hindsight.
          No, you're still not getting it. All you have is that micro evolution(not disputing, obviously), eventually leads to macro evolution. Not even evolutionists claim that this(ring species) is evidence of it, so you're literally refuting yourself with your admitted lack of knowledge. You can't seem to admit this has never taken place, so you're trying to straw man this in along with your buddy 0Angel0. What you are literally referring to, whether you know it or not, is a change in the frequency of alleles, but what you're not taking into account is the fact that this change in frequency necessarily reflects a reduction in some of the alleles, or a complete elimination of them, and the only increase is merely a matter of the difference in proportions present in the those populations, the expression of formerly suppressed alleles that were already present in the old population. I don't know how many times I have to say this. There is no increase in the alleles available, there is simply more of a certain kind, of which there used to be proportionally fewer in the former population, but there is always a decrease in alleles that defined the original population and in some cases a complete elimination of those formerly expressed alleles which results in a loss of genetic diversity.

          When you repeat around the ring, over long periods of time to establish a large and phenotype homogeneous population, one established population becomes the basis for the migration of a core few of its members to a new territory to form a new population, this group possess an even more limited amount of alleles from the former population, with the new frequency of alleles becoming the basis for a new phenotype that would emerge from the inbreeding. This is, what you know as isolation and inbreeding among members of the new population, which you would call the new "species" or subspecies. With this "speciation", as you would refer to it, there is an accompanied reduction in genetic possibilities(gene depletion again), from changes in gene frequency that occurs with the new population, as it requires(genetic law) that some of the alleles that formed the phenotype of its predecessor to be lost in new population.

          tl;dr "speciation" comes at a loss of variability, and you are still not providing what I've been asking this whole thread.
          Make America Great Again

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
            No, you're still not getting it. All you have is that micro evolution(not disputing, obviously), eventually leads to macro evolution. Not even evolutionists claim that this(ring species) is evidence of it, so you're literally refuting yourself with your admitted lack of knowledge. You can't seem to admit this has never taken place, so you're trying to straw man this in along with your buddy 0Angel0. What you are literally referring to, whether you know it or not, is a change in the frequency of alleles, but what you're not taking into account is the fact that this change in frequency necessarily reflects a reduction in some of the alleles, or a complete elimination of them, and the only increase is merely a matter of the difference in proportions present in the those populations, the expression of formerly suppressed alleles that were already present in the old population. I don't know how many times I have to say this. There is no increase in the alleles available, there is simply more of a certain kind, of which there used to be proportionally fewer in the former population, but there is always a decrease in alleles that defined the original population and in some cases a complete elimination of those formerly expressed alleles which results in a loss of genetic diversity.

            When you repeat around the ring, over long periods of time to establish a large and phenotype homogeneous population, one established population becomes the basis for the migration of a core few of its members to a new territory to form a new population, this group possess an even more limited amount of alleles from the former population, with the new frequency of alleles becoming the basis for a new phenotype that would emerge from the inbreeding. This is, what you know as isolation and inbreeding among members of the new population, which you would call the new "species" or subspecies. With this "speciation", as you would refer to it, there is an accompanied reduction in genetic possibilities(gene depletion again), from changes in gene frequency that occurs with the new population, as it requires(genetic law) that some of the alleles that formed the phenotype of its predecessor to be lost in new population.

            tl;dr "speciation" comes at a loss of variability, and you are still not providing what I've been asking this whole thread.
            So you think it's impossible for genetic material to be duplicated? What about hox genes? Maybe this will clear up your confusion?

            Development is epigenetic Why Evolution Is True
            The Champagne of Beards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
              So you think it's impossible for genetic material to be duplicated? What about hox genes? Maybe this will clear up your confusion?

              Development is epigenetic Why Evolution Is True
              Confusion lol... I was hoping you would bring up Hox; but how does this explain macro evolution? Prevent something from growing doesn't explain how it got there in the first place. This requires a lot more genes in the first place.

              To clarify altering something via science.
              Make America Great Again

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                Yeah x 100. That's not to say that I hate people who are religious. But I hate the fact that their only choices for experiencing spirituality are religions that teach that their earthly lives are devoid of meaning and wonder, and that the earth is not man's true home/a sacred place.
                I can appreciate the role religion plays in people's lives; solace and connection to a community, who doesn't want that? But, it's all the other stuff that is just way messed up and leads to so much suffering. How can anyone look at a newborn baby and believe that it comes into this world flawed? That is just beyond me.
                Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                  Confusion lol... I was hoping you would bring up Hox; but how does this explain macro evolution? Prevent something from growing doesn't explain how it got there in the first place. This requires a lot more genes in the first place.

                  To clarify altering something via science.
                  Hox genes are an example of replicating sections of DNA. One way you can get "extra" DNA. And then the DNA can mutate. I'm not sure I understand what you're denying/rejecting here. If you want to have a discussion/argument, make your objections clear.
                  The Champagne of Beards

                  Comment


                  • Oh sigh. You boys spend WAY too much time arguing.

                    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                      Hox genes are an example of replicating sections of DNA. One way you can get "extra" DNA. And then the DNA can mutate. I'm not sure I understand what you're denying/rejecting here. If you want to have a discussion/argument, make your objections clear.
                      Hox genes either turn on or turn off an array of other genes; but macro evolution requires the addition of new information and genes, not alternations of existing ones, no matter what they postulate. This is my entire point, which Hox genes did nothing or was even relevant at all to my last post to you.
                      Make America Great Again

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                        Richard Dawkins LOL! Shallow bibelbelt Americans needed an atheist boogeyman to scare them into firmer faith and a shallow atheist, biologist and philosopher wannabee stepped on the soapbox to help them! If Dawkins had just let the naive American christians alone, then we would not have noticed them much, at least not outside their own country...
                        Yeah, he's a pretty irritating liberal blowhard.
                        Make America Great Again

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                          Yeah, he's a pretty irritating liberal blowhard.
                          Well you and RM are cute and fun to talk to.

                          Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oceangrl View Post
                            Well you and RM are cute and fun to talk to.

                            Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
                            Thx, I like you too.



                            My only problem with Rich atm, is, when I read through his previous posts he was thoroughly insulting about creationism and asserting that evolution was the only way, yet, when criticism came, he tries to defer to other people as if he wasn't even prepared to back up his own statement. After this, he shows personal incredulity by saying that I am simply not understanding. This is even worse than when creationists try to refute evolution from scripture in the bible.

                            Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

                            Corinthians 13:4-8

                            <3
                            Last edited by Derpamix; 11-03-2013, 10:07 PM.
                            Make America Great Again

                            Comment


                            • Aww...that makes me giddy..or stewpid. BA..speak up.

                              Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oceangrl View Post
                                Aww...that makes me giddy..or stewpid. BA..speak up.

                                Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
                                :3

                                I revel in being the only one debating from a certain perspective and getting tons of people to debate against me. So much fun. I was getting a little bored with the evolution of Peatarians from an isolated area on this forum, I've barely had any excitement here recently.
                                Make America Great Again

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X