All things started out perfect and became more fragile the more complex they became.
Evolution adopts to the change become more complex and even more fragile....
Thing about it in macro and micro terms.
I am certainly getting less and less mature as I get older.
hhmmm, your problem is genuine. May be you have become old enough where the following verse of Qur'an best fits.
Qur'an-Chapter 68: If We grant long life to any, We cause him to be reversed in nature: Will they not then understand?
Its very natuaral, its not an evolution business at all.
Everything is perfect. Because it is. You don't get much more perfect than that. Sometimes simplicity is perfection and other times complexity is. Fragility is relative. Is a spider's web fragile? That depends - to me - yes. To a fly? No.
Things change. Macro or Micro - things change. We evolve and are still perfect. Because we are. We fit. We evolved. We are evolving. We will always evolve - until we are no more. Which is perfect.
I hope we learn to draw the boundaries of science where we figure out what is useful and what is not. I was reading about the nuclear holocaust scenario and for all the advances in science we have created this one frankenstein monster(nuclear weapons) which if we don't learn to control can bring an end to not only our existence but of our entire planet (except for a few cockroaches). Now that is a scary thought.
That's not even the half of it countrywomen. There is an evolutionist organization called CERN that plans on replicating the big bang in underground tunnels between France and Switzerland. Austria is the first country that has decided to opt out of the CERN program. How dare these mad men jeopardize 7 billion people and the existence of our entire planet with their folly. What gives them the right.
I am not even a bit afraid of that! There is no way they could break the speed of light and replicate the Big Bang and even if they were successful at it, we would be wiped out without even a thought. I mean you wouldn't have enough time to even realize it happened. We would just be gone, done with, nothing left, zip, zero, nadda, the end.
Actually it is evolving. It is growing and metamorphosizing into something else. The way a body turns to ash and bones and dirt and again rhe earth from which life rises.
So true. Information does not accumulate and self-assembling mechanisms do not spontaneously generate as evolutionists would like to believe.
What does happen then? Bearing in mind this is a science forum. I think you want the irrational beliefs forum. One up in case you missed it.
If something perfect became fragile it wasn't perfect in the first place.
What is perfect after all?its relative.
Child is more fragile than adult.
Human life in Middle Ages was less fragile than now.
In thermodyanics, this is the law of entropy. As time increases so does randomness.
I am not so sure how relevant time is considering in space there isn't anything to really gauge it by. That would be why it's called space-time... time is only relative to us.
So without time ordered in the Universe, how can the laws of thermodynamics apply? Entropy brings order out of chaos so if time is not actually increasing then neither is its randomness, right?
right? scratching my head.
Not quite. Entropy brings chaos out of order. But thermodynamics laws are generally applied to a closed system, i.e. draw any boundaries you like, and within that place you'll find that the laws of thermodynamics apply.
My bad. lol So it is so, that it was ordered and that the more complex things become the more unstable they become? Right?
Again no, not really. As entropy (or randomness) increases, the end result is stability. A boring, mindless stability, but stable because there is no 'organisation' hanging on for survival. Everything is already dead and dissipated.
So the more complex it becomes the more fragile it becomes...leading to death and dissipation?
I am still wondering how random it could be if the end result is that all things are broken down until the need for survival itself is dead and gone?
In which case it started out perfect and evolution adapted change to survive not leading to its original perfected state but essentially devolutionized.
No. Random refers to the process, not the result. You cannot conflate the two. Like was said, perfect things don't evolve. You're using evolution wrong. There is no evolutionary requirement for greater complexity or fragility. Also, more importantly, the word devolution means something entirely different from what you think it means.
If your point is that the laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems, yes, that is accurate and accepted fact.
I thought I made up the word devolution.
I am not using evolution out of context. Evolution adapts, it is not perfect. I am suggesting however that the process of evolution will result in devolution. As it become so "advanced" "complex" that it becomes broken down into its simplest form, which would be a perfect state and no further breakdown is possible.
I could view this as a state where nothing moves, as the laws of thermodynamics would have it but in my thoughts at the moment, it could also be that all elements, things, or whatever there is become perfected in their own state and all things coalesce, in which everything will be complete in own space, much like an atom or quart take up space between space between space etc...
My thoughts on randomness and entropy or thermodynamics are that it seems random because we don't know the formula or how many variables there could actually be (so yes I see this as fact) in my mind it seems that no two things could randomly unite and make something or destroy something...
More that if it can, then it will but if it cannot then it will not. I understand in a chaotic state things become excited but they always settle back into their natural state when added elements such as heat are removed.
I see the excitable state as a random action of the hydrogen bonds doing their thing but because they always come together the same way, I don't view it as random. The only part random about it is that, if you could count and label the molecules, then how the order is random, but there is still order.
Does this explain what I am trying to say better?
Is it truly random though? Or does it grow so complex our feeble brains can't keep up?
And as time increases and randomness increases and the Universe expands, it also.... cools and will cool to the state of absolute zero and nothing moves.
The heat death
Perhaps that is the moment when universal consciousness is finally achieved. Maybe that is the ending that you seek.
It seems Mark agrees with you and BDazzler, Sandra. Hence the question, should it be called Darwin's Theory of Evolution or Rink's Theory of Devolution.
Oh - you mean this thread is an attack on the scientific theory of evolution. I never guessed. Must prove the catholic credo of sex with little boys is what? Pedolution
No it's not. Let's put that behind us before it gets out of control again. Please.
Mike thinks it is
And I was just winding him up.
The Greek Orthodox church stole lots of money from taxpayers....
The Theory of Thievolution
Perhaps you're unclear on what perfect means. A perfect being is perfectly suited to its conditions and has no need to change. The word perfect comes from the latin for "complete." Perfect things can't, by definition, be made more complex.
Also, what you have is a hypothesis, not a theory. It isn't substantiated.
If you're interested in the theological aspect of what you may be talking about, you might like the Jewish notion of "tikkun". In any case, this isn't science.
To address the thermodynamics, I doubt anyone would refer to the initial state as "perfect". Entropy and decay aren't acting on perfect things.
I dunno, I would think the Universe is already perfect only in that it holds everything in it because the boundaries don't change and everything else seems to be attracted to it.
I am not interested in the theologies though because I am not here to discuss philosophies.
Yes, but the environment is dynamic. If evolution reaches a peak, it also reaches a terminus. Then there's nowhere to go but down.
I think that adaption to the changing environment is the continuation of evolution.
Not disagreeing but a perfect state is not merely a peak state. I'm arguing you can't throw the word perfect around the way Sandra does. And yes, adaptation continually occurs, and given the dynamic nature of the environment, you'll probably come across many peaks.
Again for the fifth, sixth time. I use the word perfect meaning that "everything" "absolutely" "everything" that there ever was in the beginning of however it all started was "perfect", if it was not perfect, then we might not be here at all, no Universe, no stars, no planets, no life.
To think otherwise would be making an assumption.
And still when something seems gone, were did it go? It's still around in someway, shape or form. If that isn't perfect then you don't know what perfect is.
Your insistence that this is a moral discussion is pretty redundant and you stuck on just a few things that you just can't get past.
What does anything I said have to do with morals in this thread?
Are you trying to say the theory of evolution should actually be called the theory of devolution?
DEVO! - one of my favorite groups, originally from Akron Ohio and Kent State U. Their latest incarnation is producing the album Fresh for release in Fall 2009.
Sandy, you seem to be confusing randomness and structure. The law of entropy says that randomness increases over time. The end result of all of this is that at some point, everything becomes random. I have some problems with this notion as it was first developed before the introduction of computing and the development of chaos theory. The reason this is important is because things once thought to be random and subject to the law of entropy were show to have an internal order, we just couldn't see it because those equations couldn't be solved by people working by hand.
Evolution is another matter entirely. It is derived from the theory of natural selection which states that any biological organism will develop traits that are most effective for the environment it finds itself in. Additionally over time, new species are created as organisms adapt to new environments.
Perfection is really a subjective term. What's perfect to one person is different from another person's version of perfect. In evolutionary terms you probably mean an organism that is perfectly adapted to any environment. We have seen little evidence of such an organism, but that doesn't mean that in time we wouldn't see such an example. I, however, can't thing of a place that would have such a thing occur naturally without some sort of engineering involved.
Anyway, enough rambling, hope this helps clarify a few things.
"Please step away from the box."
Hey I think you are on to something Sandra.
You know, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years, Seth lived after he begot Enos, eight hundred and seven years, Cainan lived after he begot Malaleel eight hundred and forty years, Malaleel lived after he begot Jared eight hundred and thirty years, Jared lived after he begot Henoch eight hundred years and so on. We think we are doing something big cause we are living longer than 40 years now. Wippdy do.
The numerous animals and plants that have gone extinct also shows implications of a theory of devolution. And so does our environment.
I think you should apply for a government grant to do research on this theory of devolution Sandra. Start big by asking for 50 mill, then work down from there.
Maybe eventually the theory of devolution will be forced to be taught in our schools too.
Wouldn't that be something; Rinck's Theory of Devolution versus Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I like it.
LOL. Can't stop laughing! hahahhahahah
If I did that, they would probably only grant me money to shut up. )
Well that's how they get the grants. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The loudest usually gets all the money. I mean look at how they are handing it out these days. Yeah, yeah I forgot the extinction of the dinosaurs too, to add to your theory (flood or K-T event, whatever you prefer). It's basically whatever your imagination can come up with. Yeah natural selection too, how Hitler and Stalin used it, it just smells of the Theory of Devolution (gone goes 150 million between them). We could probably form a lobby group for you right from within these forums. Who's for Rinck's Theory of Devolution?
You're not going to be taken seriously because literature already exists on this subject. What you're discussing/proposing is a fallacy.
That's nice. I never heard of it before. Like I said before. I had come up with this on my own and it is my own so you can call my thoughts fallacy if you would like.
So this person's theory was proven wrong. Your calling mine false because it is different from what the other one proposed.
Give me a break. You think no two people in the world could think of the same word to express different things? Aren't you an English professor?
I agree, but devolution can be construed in multiple lights. Take the band Devo, who thought that society was going back to more barbaric roots.
Survival of the Fittest can only go so far. Tell me, how good is the theory if in the end nothing survives? The theory is only good for now so get with the future.
You may have come up with it independently but it isn't fundamentally different from the cited fallacy. If you think for some reason yours is, then by using a term that is understood to mean something else, you're doing yourself a disservice. It is called a fallacy for a specific reason. It isn't because of who came up with it. As a matter of fact, it wasn't cobbled together by one person but by many people who speculated similarly to what you did.
Words have meaning. Sometimes meanings are superceded but they aren't usually via an obscure little corner of the internet in the absence of all the many things required for a theory to gain weight. You're welcome to use any word you choose to describe what you like. You can call your theory gravity if you like, or epistemology, all independent of anyone else. Just don't expect to be taken seriously simply because you thought of it yourself.
The theory of evolution is an explanation for natural phenomena and its mechanism. You're falsely assuming that there is an endpoint and that because the endpoint is unsatisfactory for you, it negates everything that came before. You're conflating various disciplines and ideas haphazardly. If in the end, nothing survives, then nothing survives. Doesn't mean anything or invalidate anything. Models have parameters.
Ask an astrophysicist or physicist if there is an end, they will say yes. If they suggested otherwise, other than the possibility of chance, then the Big Bang theory is also obsolete. The theory that the Universe is expanding is obsolete, the theory that it will retract is obsolete...
But you are right, I am using many theories in one theory because what else do you do with it all? Keep them all independent from each other and waste your brain away?
If that is the case then it is no wonder people are getting dumber with knowledge because they can't put them together.
But still the question remains. What good is the theory of the survival of the fittest or natural selection when nothing survives in the end?
I think this bothers you because you may be afraid it may be true.
Uh...this bothers me because it's parroting a fallacy, not because it may be true. There's no evidence for your position.
The Big Bang purports to explain a very particular event in the past. What a specific ultimate end of the universe may be does not have meaningful bearing on it. Is the ending consistent with the mechanism cited in the theory is all that matters. Frameworks with implications. A scientist taking the position that the universe will end one way or another does not refute the theory itself.
Haphazardly smooshing various theories together does not get you a super-theory. It gets you a haphazard jumble. You are supposed to bring knowledge to bear on other knowledge but there is a method for that. Knowledge has implications you work from. Knowledge of how to count or change your bicycle tyres does not automatically translate into knowledge on how to refuel an aircraft, despite how you may think the various knowledges are wasting your brain away.
Also, people are not getting dumber with knowledge, whatever that means.
Why do you assume that nothing will survive in the end? You're making a huge assumption and you don't have much to back it up with. How do you explain things like the K-T extinction? 90% of all life died then, but not only did live recover, there was more biological diversity than there had been before the K-T event.
All the theories of natural selection and evolution tell us is that organisms change over time to reflect the environment they find themselves in. So really there is no such thing a devolution, because biological organisms are always changing to meet the circumstances they find themselves in.
You're extrapolating in a linear fashion, which can get you in trouble because there still are things in creation that we don't understand. When we understand them, theory and law will shift to accommodate our new knowledge.
On the same token, assuming that there is no end, is also a huge assumption because there is more evidence that there is an end, then there is of no end in the things we can see in life. If there was a beginning, and with everything that we can see, then there is also an end.
In another thread I suggested that the only logical argument is that there is a center. Small and large we could never be able to gauge where this center is, when it all started and when it will all end.
The Big Bang is a good theory my problem with it is that it says that there were six elements present at that time. I forget which ones they were and from them came many other elements, but there is one element that remains hidden... that being what ever law or element that governed or encompass the six, the undisclosed seventh element, pure energy perhaps?
If it was so the whole idea that the Universe started from one mighty pow! is a misnomer. For example one misnomer is there there was never an actual Pow! Given that there would have to be something for the sound to reflect upon to be heard.
But mostly, that there had to be something for it to explode into.
Today we might call it dark energy and they are working on defining it but once they come up with a good definition for this seen and unseen "element" the Big Bang is a thing of the past, lol no pun intended.
In another thread I suggested that looking out into space is not looking out into the past. Scientist will literally translate this as looking into the past, yet I cant get over the thought that it is actually the future.
That we are literally looking into the future. Why? Because if we can see a billion light years away and know that Andromeda is on due course to collide with us in the Milky Way... that it is coming towards us or us them, then if it truly that were looking into the past, then they would be saying that it already happened.
So where is the defining line of past and future? How anyone can portend that looking out into space is literally the past that the discovery of new star forming regions actually happened billions of years ago and we are no receiving the images leave me to believe that it is our future and we live in the past.
Then if an astrologer or physicist were to say that the Universe is ever expanding, I would say yes but since we are following on our course in the same direction (whichever direction this happens to be) essentially we aren't going anywhere. It would seem that to say this is a fallacy is like saying that our Galaxy is stationary and the rest is moving forward.
So after all that the questions remains.
If looking out into space is literally looking into our past, then if the Galaxy Andromeda is on course to collide with us in the future, how is this the past?
If the Big Bang were a fact and the Universe started from one singularity that encompassed everything, then what did it explode into?
Time itself is only subject to human ideology and a tool used for understanding, yet the more we understand the less we know about the concepts of time.
There is no possible way for anyone to accurately calculate the age of the Universe when no one knows where it begins and where it ends.
To do so is like recognizing the Earth as the center of the Universe which most will dispute and so if everything we see is in the future, then we are presently living in the past.
Not the other way around. Unless of course someone would like to draw a line of where the past begins and the future ends. All there is, is the present and the future. The past does not exist but only in a memory.
To believe that one could travel into the past, by traveling into space beyond our reach is always a movement forward into the future.
All I am saying is that, it was perfect to begin with and it will end perfect to begin with.
I didn't say evolution doesn't adapt to change. I said things started out perfect and became fragile over time. I said then when everything is broken down into their simplest form, it will be perfect because there is no possibility of change.
I said that just because it looks random doesn't mean that it truly is random when the end result is a pefected state where nothing further can be broken down.
I am assuming that there is a "perfect" state for all matter no matter how many of them there are. I said that if you know the outcome, no matter how random the acts become, the simple process is that with time randomness increases, but as it increases, it becomes more fragile.
When something becomes so fragile, it means (to me) that is being broken down into its simplest form.
So because people want to cling to nomenclature or verbal intellect, there leaves no desire to see that what seems random does indeed have and end.
In the end, nothing survives. Maybe maybe not. If the law of thermodynamics is correct then there would be no movement and if it did move, then it would all move as one whole in one perfected state... whatever this happens to be.
Another argument supporting Rinck's Theory of Devolution.
The means of turning the evolution disaster into victory have never been greater. Being aware of the drama is the first step (after all, from one man came all mankind). The scientific explanation of the origin of the cosmos has a well concealed Achilles’ heel. The flaw is the element of time. Time is used by the evolutionist as if it were an ingredient in a compound mixture. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. It is no more than a means of measuring movement. Two molecules of hydrogen mixed with one of oxygen produce water. The process can be measured by time but time is not an ingredient in the end product of water. Yet the evolution myth has built up that given enough time the most impossible things can happen: dinosaurs changing into birds, cows into whales. [In fact, due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics the opposite is the case: with time entropy increases.]
.....there are so many things wrong with almost everything you say about science it's hard to figure out where to start.
Thermodynamics is not an evolutionary field. Dinosaurs did not turn into birds. Cows did not turn into whales. You might also want to reconsider what you think time is, or introduce yourself to relativity, and the meaning of the word ingredient.
Being fundamentally uncurious is not a good thing. Astronomy is well aware of time. Simply because it has no tangible benefits to you personally does not mean it isn't a field worth pursuing. Knowledge is never a bad thing and often, these things have practical implications and applications. There are a variety of reasons scientists pursue astronomy and physics. You'll have to ask them individually, instead of musing about their futility.
Other food for thought.
If scientist are so sure that out there in space is the past, then why are they looking for life that doesn't exist anymore or if ever?
If they did find life in a present form a billion light years away; why would they strive to reach what has already past?
To travel that far out into the future, because we live presently in the past, then what of it would they expect to find but nothing.
If they said, we found a planet with life on it a billion light years away and we had the technology to get us there, what makes them so sure that the planet itself would still remain?
Unless the thought changed from the current theory that it is the past, to a new thought that it is the future and we can meet up with it (which to me is just doyee).
The most important thing that anyone ever said to me was, "Everything you need to know or could be known, you can find right here on Earth." -Anthony
Of all the strangest things there ever could be or ever will be, the strangest of all things is Humans.
"which to me is just doyee"
I have been meaning to reply to this post for some time. I find Anthony's quote profound.
"Everything you need to know or could be known, you can find right here on Earth." -Anthony
It makes you wonder whether there should even be any space exploration. We seem to know more about outer space than our own planet.
This April 10, 2008 report called Ocean: the next great odyssey says “Less than 1 percent of the ocean has been explored. Less than 5 percent of the sea floor has been mapped" and “I believe that the human race is about to embark on a fantastic odyssey, not necessarily beyond Earth, but deep within it".
Oh yes! From the things they have uncovered down there, something just blow my mind.
Like, a lake under water! That just boggles me. Of course it is the density of the water or however it works out but to see other creatures swimming in the pond in the abyss that not even their bulky machine could penetrate it makes me think, there are things that are not meant to be known too.
With you both on that one - I studied deep sea ecosystems and hydrothermal vents and found them fascinating. I would love to go down in one of the submersibles and see some of the fantastic creatures down there!
For sure Sufi. I've watched documentaries that showed deep sea creatures that look more alien than the Roswell alien autopsy spoof.
speaking of aliens beings from other origins. I was watching this show about UFO's and stuff on discovery channel or maybe it was History channel... anyways.
They had this alien in a room being interrogated and it looked so creepy and stuff until it started having physically problems and the doctors came in to see what was wrong with it.
After that the alien didn't look creepy it looked scared. Don't know if it was real, more then likely it is not real but ya never really know.
Don't blame the alien though, I am scared of doctors too.
The level of dualistic thought you guys are bringing up is ridiculous. If you decided to read up on those topics, you'll find a wealth of information. You are not the first person to think up those questions, despite what you may think. There's entire books written addressing each and everyone of those questions. It's not as simplistic as you make it out to be. It's not a or b.
I mean, you're bringing up straw men and then killing them, as if that disproves anything. No one said anything about a Pow! except you, Sandra. As for your worry that it's a misnomer, read up on how the origin of the phrase, you'll see why it is so. And a derisively coined title does not disprove a model.
What on earth are you talking about with the six elements? That's not part of anything, certainly not any cosmological model I've heard of. And that's your primary problem? Well, be glad. There's nothing to fear there.
The part about past and future, yeah, unstructured, that sounds like the kinds of ramblings people go on after they get high. There are very precise implications to all those questions and they've been addressed, in varying degrees of completeness, by many people. There are answers, seriously.
Caleb - if I wasn't already a member of you fan club - I would join again.
Sounds like you need to get caught up in your reading yourself. You missed a lot of things but it is pointless to ask you anything because you don't have a good answer yourself but would rather antagonize my thoughts because for some reason your are more fascinated with trying to make me feel stupid then just looking into other things of the world because for sure you have all the answers.
Please, if you have all the answers, then why not answer just one question? Because.... you... can't? Of course dabbling in the idea that they could be wrong is just unsound.
But if you hate this thread so much then why don't you go away? Because you can't stand the thought of someone else having a thought of their own. Or maybe because your credentials somehow entitle you to have a better opinion then myself.
Oh, wait I know. With your credentials you have agreed that all other opinions, thoughts, or concepts are taboo. They must all be high. lol
Loosen up and be happy or something because your too... what is the word? Uptight.
Aw is Sandra stifling me? I was just starting to have some fun. I even have lots more proof for her Rink's Theory of Devolution.
Stifling? Hope not. But I did say that Evolution can only go so far because in the end nothing survives.
Of course Mark said, everything we continually evolve until we are no more.
Mark said, everything is perfect.
I said, everything starts out perfect.
But whatever, Mark says it then everyone agrees, I say it then it must be some anti evolution trip.
So please Mike, continue I want to hear your thoughts.
Oh my last name is spelled with a "c". Rinck... everyone does it.
Pardon me. So that would be Rinck's Theory of Devolution then.
"Mark says it then everyone agrees" is a fallacy.
To be continued.
If you say it is not your intention to make a philosophical attack on evolution I believe you.
But perhaps you could clear something up for me because I am a little unclear at to what you mean by "perfect."
The best I can say is that everything is perfect because it is. Everything evolves into something else. Which means it no longer exists.
But you seem to be implying - and forgive me if I got this wrong - that everything started out perfect but is no longer perfect because of evolution. Is that right?
I am also really, really really sorry that I enjoyed reading what caleb wrote.
Sorta but not really. I view the process of evolution as a "perfect" process in the breakdown of all things into it's simplest form where no further process is necessary.
So in some ways, evolution is losing something but the loss of a components doesn't necessarily mean it was not perfect. If Evolution did not have a counter part like my theory of devolution, then nothing could be called extinct only changed.
And then if that were the case, there are the same number of animals, creatures, organic matter or whatever, today as there was 15 billion years ago.
But we do know that some species have become extinct. So when I said that it started out perfect... I sorta view evolution as a catalyst.
And so with the laws of thermodynamics as much argument there is about it; it would work well with the theory because as time increases, so does randomness but so does the Universe. And as the Big Bang started out as hot as hot can get... it also cools and will cool until it cannot cool anymore and this occurs with time. And started at the very beginning of the Bang.
And when it cannot cool any more, there is no movement whatsoever, unless of course the complete break down of everything that ever filled up every single space that can be filled and all moves together but nothing independent and that is how I view the theory of Absolute Zero.
So, no this is not an argument against evolution but in other words I am saying that it is incomplete. And the only thing I agree with caleb on is that I using the term devolution does me a disservice but I can't exactly go back and change the heading of the thread.
I am not sure I understand this. Why is evolution making things simpler. Sometimes they get more simple, sometimes they get more complex. They merely adapt to change. If more complex or more simple works, that is what they adapt to.
Losing something? Like what? What has this to do with perfection? If something was "perfect" and then the environment changed - so it needed to change and adapt - how is this not "perfect"?
But surely if we evolve into something different - a new species, we will have become extinct.
I have no idea if there are the same number of creatures now as there was 15 billion years ago. What difference does it make? A virus is a "creature" how many chickens does that count for?
Evolution reacts - it is not the catalyst - more the end product.
Not sure what you are saying here. Or how evolution is "complete" It is what it is. And I never said I agreed with caleb. Only that I enjoyed reading what he wrote.
Thus I said earlier in the thread that, the more complex something becomes, the more fragile it becomes. The more random it becomes the more complex it becomes. It might adapt to change but when the environment itself dies, then what will it adapt to?
That seems to be the problem with evolution when you say we always evolve; or you say here that "we evolve into something different- a new species, we will have become extinct." - I can ask you now the same question, what did we lose? What has become extinct?
But that is the other thing about evolution that does not make sense. If it always evolves and what we were before became extinct and replaces ourselves with a better "species", then the same number of species that ever did exist still exist today and then it is illogical that we have evolved from Apes, or from a common ancestor unless you would agree that all things did come from one "single" cell, if you will and in that case there would be evidence that we are all one in the same in origin, which I can only gather at this time, it being blood.
From what I recall, the blood cell being the only single cell without a nucleus.
but back to what I was saying. It wouldn't make sense even that we Apes and Humans evolved from one common ancestor with the same number of species today as there were before.
If a catalyst can cause a change without itself being affected, then what you don't know about evolution is that the process in itself does not change but it changes everything else.
So I view it as a catalyst in that Evolution, in of itself does not change but it does change other things.
I could only agree with what you just said if you did theorize with me that Evolution is a catalyst.
Oh, if you actually read the thread you see this is not my first remark here
Come on Sandy, I read all what you write
And I think you are misinterpreting Mark and Caleb, but this is between you guys, I don't stay in between
OK. This is not an attack on evolution as a scientific theory.
We did not lose anything. Something new comes out of what was. Whatever was is no more. Extinct.
Evolution is not a catalyst. Nor is is a philosophy. It is merely the best explanation science has come up with to explain the differences and reasons behind new species. Which includes us. Sorry.
It is not wrong or right. There is no "better." There is no "perfect." What is is perfect as far as I am concerned. None of what you are saying really makes any sense or has any scientific basis.
Just another attack on evolution as far as I can see.
Well I knew it wouldn't last and I am sorry you see it that way. It's not a philosophy, its about life. If you don't understand it its fine. Possibly you don't want to. And that is okay with me.
And that is as far as evolution goes. lol ;P
Or perhaps you are just not explaining your self adequately? Because I am not getting it.
"It wouldn't make sense even that we Apes and Humans evolved from one common ancestor with the same number of species today as there were before."
"But that is the other thing about evolution that does not make sense."
"That seems to be the problem with evolution"
Probably these type of statements are not helping?
Yes, it would not make sense that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor when the same number of species exist today as it did millions of years ago.
Because you said that we are continuously evolving and new species are replacing extinct ones. That means that when one is gone, then there is another in its place.
But we did not replace the ape with a human and from 1 common ancestor, then there would be 1 species to replace it, not two... evolved apes and evolved humans.
So we could not have evolved from apes and we could not have had 1 common ancestor.
But it is likely that you will again call this an attack on evolution even if I say it is not an attack on evolution. And knowing that our fellow hubbers will not do me the same respect as they do for you, then what I say doesn't matter because they believe what you say no matter what.
You don't want to discuss this with me, you don't want to try and understand what I am saying, you just want to direct this to whatever you want it to be so that others will come and say things that I did not intend for.
If there is more out there to understand then I want to understand it because not even theories stay the same. It might not be me who will do anything for this but someone will understand who does have the credentials to back it up.
But I can be your laughing stock in the mean time.
OK - Scenario:
One species. Called, interestingly enough XY1
One third on this species accidentally gets cut off from the rest of the species thanks to a volcanic eruption. Nothing changes in their environment and they continue to be species XY1.
Two thirds of the species XY1 are trapped in a hostile environment thanks to said volcanic eruption. They were on the wrong side of the hill, and the lava is flowing their way.
Half of them take to the sea and swim to the East (looks safest east). They eventually hit dry land and discover an environment they can live in which is radically different to their previous one. Some of them survive.
They adapt and become species XY1(a).
The other half think the guys who swam East are morons and will surely die out - this half swim south and do not hit dry land. A few of them adapt and learn to live in water becoming species XY2.
You now have 3 different species - including the original - XY1.
and yet you still don't understand devolution. It's not a premises against evolution.
And with species XY1, whose environment was not changed, in the theory of evolution would of had to had a reason for a third of them to be cut off. There are no accidents.
The scenario of the volcanic eruption that did not change their environment is reaching. Unless you want to retract your statement about an animal not moving on their own will because they just felt like it.
Remember that conversation. lol
Look up the number of chromosomes in any given given animals of any species... how many of them share the same number of chromosomes?
Of course I do not understand. You are starting from a bunch of faulty premises that make no sense.
What do you mean by "perfect," and how did you come to this conclusion?
Why do you think things become more complex and more "fragile."
There is no evidence for this and what do you mean by "fragile,"?
What do you mean by "accident," and how do you come to this conclusion?
A volcano is not an "accident." It is a natural occurence.
I can see I have stirred you emotions. lol Tell you what, why don't you define it for me since you are the one with all the answers.
You brought up accident. You defined perfection and now you are also arguing with your own statements. You crack me up.
You ever stretch out a rubber band? Observe and really think... just think about it.
Not really. I came to a default definition in the absence of yours. It is perfect because it is. You are implying that things began perfect and no longer are that way.
You ever stretch a rubber band only to discover it was not there?
Oh - and it was you that brought up accidents.
No sir, wrong again. You said accident with the beginning of your scenario.
I certainly did say it started out perfect but you obviously haven't read the thread thoroughly so see my thoughts on perfection.
If you don't want to admit that evolution and devolution are occurring at the same time, then whatever.
For someone as "intelligent" as you try to be, I find it astonishing that you cannot make the connection that while one species is "losing" the other is "gaining".
I have stated at least three times already that my thoughts on 'perfection' in the beginning is that everything necessary for life and our Universe was already present and it was perfect.
I also went as far as to define for you that the loss of something doesn't necessarily mean that it is not perfect but I am implying that devolution is a degenerating process that does occur with evolution.
I did ask you about how many species have the same number of chromosomes so that you could further study for yourself that over time, the number of genes is being lost and altering the number of chromosomes there in an any species that are identified by their number and shape of the chromosome itself.
And also that the survival of the fittest has reached a pivotal point in our lifetime and we are weeding out the fittest and leaving the weakest to survive. This is not occurring with nature... unless we get obliterated by some sort of cosmic catastrophe. Which was where my mind was in the beginning of the thread when I talked about micro and macro terms.
But it really is the human species that is doing it.
If you could follow on track without being side tracked by the on going debate about the origins of man, then you might be able to see that;
we will (hopefully not) continue to kill off the fittest and leave the next fittest to survive, and then on it goes until the weakest of all species is the strongest.
What? I think you need to redefine micro and macro, becuase this makes no sense. By definition - the strongest are the ones that survive. The fact that you perceive them to be weakest is moot. Clearly - if they survive - they are the strongest.
And humans are somehow not part of nature? Why is this?
Hope has nothing to do with it. I thought you wanted to be impartial?
Still not clear what you mean by devolution. Because there seems to be only a philosophical argument here. Weakest. Strongest. Humans are doing it.
Not sure what you mean by "losing" or "gaining" either. Don't get the "degenerating" either.
Evolution just is. We change. Things change. What difference does it make if it become more - or less - complex?
For someone of your obvious intelligence. I would have thought that you could see that this is a philosophical approach to a scientific question.
If you could put away your BS religious beliefs - perhaps you could see that? Maybe not huh?
The Human species that is doing it
And we are not part of nature
Perhaps we have dominion?
Sure Mark, your life revolves around yourself. May God Bless you with a clear head.
Not gonna pipe in on anyone's side, but I would suggest that there is some great reading ahead, Sandra, if you decide to delve into some of the ideas you've conceived. It shows a probing curiosity that empowered you to have concocted the questions that helped you build your hypothesis. Some very famous and respectable minds in the centuries past have conceived of these things too, and gone on to pursue them with great rigor, making careers out of them even, putting them up for perusal by other equally rigorous minds. All well beyond my fathoming in any great way, but certainly a joy to have a gander at to get a sense of where the arguments have already gone, thus making the possibility of discovering something truly new and unique more likely. It's easier to get someplace else if you know where you've already been, so to speak.
Read up on the Hobbit of Indonesia (island of Flores). There's some great, cutting edge application of evolutionary theory which shows processes of "evolution" and "devolution" existing side by side (and yes, I’m taking liberty with the term). Read the stuff about the hippo brains shrinking as an expedient for conservation of energy in an environment of limited resources (I’ll post a link). Does getting a smaller brain make them more or less complex, and, given that this is an example of evolution AND devolution (I am inclined just to call it evolution, but I’m trying to not to pin you down to hegemonic diction), does this help to prove or disprove your present hypothesis?
Also, just on a side note, way back near the beginning page or two of this, you said that time is only relative to humans. There's quite a body of philosophy that would argue that it is more specifically relative to change, regardless of whether or not there are any humans to take note of it. But, don't let that derail the main point. I'll post a link the hippo article, and you can check out other Hobbit stuff if it suits you. Just search hobbit and Indonesia or Flores.
Hippo Brains stuff:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 185535.htm
I read about the hobbit found that was previously believed to be a "mentally retarded woman's" brain thus not being the case. though she was small. Tough I am glad that Folk has finally "proven" that this hobbit is human that did exist along side the homo sapein but of course the question is still, where/who/what did it come from?
Really very fascinating.
I also read a while back about the size of the dinosaurs being larger because of the oxygen in the atmosphere. The more oxygen there was the larger the animal was yet their brains were very small in comparison to their bodies.
Course with the o2 levels decreasing so did the dinosaurs size but the brains became larger. So that hippo article that you left is pretty interesting. I wish there was more on the article with regards to the oxygen levels on the Island and also that of the main land as well.
I mean the dinosaurs brains were very small in comparison to their bodies with an o2 rich environment, so too was the hippo brain smaller (this is assuming that the 02 on the Island was richer -less polluted I suppose...something like that) in comparison to its body on the Island as opposed to the the size you would expect from the main land hippo.
It said that it could be because it was confined to a smaller space, and needed less energy but what if it could be that because the brain is being fueled with more oxygen, that it needs less from the environment to sustain it brains. After all, we eat to give our brains energy and food consumption makes us bigger and yet our air is becoming more polluted.
And of course time will still go on far after we are gone but seems only important to us at the time so I felt it was best to say it is only relative to humans to avoid a tangent and avoid moral discussion.
But thanks Shades, to hear that you are supportive of a mind that needs to dig is reassuring no matter what the outcome may be.
More evidence for Rinck's Theory of Devolution.
In a way this could be related to what Shadesbreath mentions about the Hobit from the island of Flores or the Madagascan hippos. The relation being the environmental factor. With the Hobit and the Madagascan hippos the environmental factor is that they were isolated on islands. This could also be true with what Sandra mentioned about the environment for the dinosaurs having more oxygen. With the case of harvesting the biggest of a species below is the environmental factor that decreases the size of a particular species.
Devolution: Breeding Down Species
The above web site talks about trophy hunting that has decreased the size of elk, moose, bighorn, grizzly and other species. It also mentions how elephant hunting/poaching for ivory has resulted in tuskless elephants of up to 98% in some groups. "And in a dramatic example of devolution, catch records from the old settlement of Louisbourg in Nova Scotia reveal that the average size of a cod caught in 1750 was just under 50 kilos, a dramatic difference from the pitiful remnants that are caught today."
The above web site talks about the impact that man has had on the Canadian east coast cod fishery. But it does not mention the impact that seals have had on the cod fishery. The ridiculous European attack on the Canadian seal hunt has played a big factor in the east coast cod fishery. Since 1992 there has been a moratorium on cod in the Canadian east coast fishery but the cod have not come back at all. During this time and because of the European attack on the Canadian seal hunt the east coast seal population has expanded by millions. Someone needs to tell Paul McCartney and Bridgette Bardot that seals eat cod.
We are all interrelated in our environment with plants and animals on this planet. That includes man. When one environmental factor is taken out of the equation (in this case the seal hunt) it upsets the balance.
P.S. Although I can not accept that we evolved from monkeys or from the same ancestor as monkeys I will try not to make fun of evolutionist. At least I'll try.
Cool. I just got done reading that link and I was right after all. Though the authors wording was much more clear than mine where as I said the survival of the fittest can only go so far. He said, we are weeding out the fittest and leaving the weak to survive but at a faster rate in which evolution could even catch up to balance it out.
The irony of natural selection! I loved it (well not loved it in that I like what is happening or anything like that) Humans have naturally (however unnatural it is) selected the biggest, fittest, and most useful of all species and have been exterminating them, leaving the weaker ones in their place.
thanks for the link Mike! Certainly it is worded clearly enough for everyone to understand if some can't understand my jargon.
Well I must say that Sandra is holding her own very well by herself against you bullies.
Sudden Abrupt Appearance?
Downward Degenerate Devolution?
Upward (Slow and Rapid) Evolution?
Let's not try to falsely convince ourselves that science has come to a conclusion yet.
You guys won't be offended if I say God bless, will you?
Oh no -I no longer get offended when people ignore my express requests to suit their own selfish preferences. It is what jesus would have done. Presumably that was the point you were making? That when you say "god bless" what you really mean is "f*** you"
jesus must be turning in his ... oh wait a minute.
Don't you have some more anti-women's right to make a choice stuff you should be pushing?
From Devolution of the Scientific Method
Hey guys, because of the bullying above I'm not even going to apologize that this is from a Creationist web site. Besides a pile of scientists are moving to the Creationist camp anyway.
More proof for Rinck's Theory of Devolution.
Another example of devolution of a species due to isolation on islands.
Quote - "we are not evolving, we are de-evolving."
That video is so funny! I loved it. Thanks for the post. Today is one of those days were a good light laugh is good for the soul.
Yeah isn't it hilarious. On a serious note though he does mention Dr. John Sanford's book titled 'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'. The Product Description for the book at Amazon describes the book like this.
Sounds like devolution to me.
Apparently not FreshtoDeath.
Yes, most commonly held theories are being retracted by the people who wrote them asking themselves more questions. I would imagine if Darwin was still alive, even he would understand this process.
These comments like the one FreshtoDeath left make me laugh, it is just like that video... 'how dare you...how dare you..!'
It makes me laugh. I think I am going to watch it again.
You guys really are funny.
Must be a god then?
Thanks for the laughs guys. No worries about the abuse and stuff.....
And you wonder why...........
Keep up the good work. Attack some science some more - maybe that will.... Oh wait.
Most commonly held beliefs are being retracted by believers as we speak.
thank you so much. I almost forgot why I didn't believe your garbage. Bless you for proving it all once again.
My favorite quote. Apparently he is still believing in a fairy tale that a frog turned into a prince."
You are making a moral judgment about a process. That is all. What you cite as de-evolution is simply evolution that you choose to make a moral judgment on. Just because you don't think that's progress doesn't mean it isn't. Make Money, elephants don't have to be larger for them to adapt to their environments. You think dwarfism is a negative trait across all conditions, which it isn't. Eventually, it was on those islands. They're dead, after all. However, for a time, it wasn't. There is no requirement that increased complexity is necessary for anything to have evolved.
Your whole de-evolution argument is an argument predicated on the belief that all evolution has a single direction: to turn into man or Voltron or whatever the fuck. The absence of this, you say, disproves evolution, and supports de-evolution. You conveniently forget that evolution is not predicated on a moral judgment of increased value.
Umm transitory species and fossils are found all the time. Stop with the Christianist propaganda.
Usually, they're pretty small-bore and not of interest to you unless you follow minute variations in early Eocene mammals or some such. What you're saying is : OMG we haven't found the missing link between ape and man, while conveniently ignoring that plenty of links have been found.
(If we're going to discuss this properly then we have to be open to the idea that universe was inevitable and could have started without a creator. All I'm asking is that you don't put limits on the Universe that you wouldn't put on God. If God can exist without a creator then certainly the Universe can, too.)
Nothing had to be perfect at the "beginning" of the universe. There is very good evidence that the universe is infinite, but if you'd like to dispute that, then we can at least agree that the universe is incredibly large. There are estimated to be over 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=40) and there are a variable number of solar systems in each galaxy.
My point is: even though the chance of everything falling perfectly into place so that I could be here today typing this refutation to you is astronomically small, the given number of possible worlds not only makes it probably, it actually makes it NECESSARY (at least in my opinion given the infinite universe). If an analogy will help, consider your chances of winning the lottery. Probably about 1 in a billion. But if you own every single ticket, then you necessarily have to win.
All your other points about devolution have been properly refuted by members here as well as by intellects in the academosphere.
You must be mistaking my response as an emotional one. I'm just a reasonable man, Sandra. I honestly have nothing invested in evolution, I don't care if it's an accurate theory or not. I'm only interested in debunking unsound or invalid arguments. But just to be clear, your plan is to ignore the actual content of my post, right?
I mean, I'll go along with it if that's what you want.
Anyway, for the sake of discourse:
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on biology, so I'm sure this book would be way over my head anyway, but as far as I can tell from that synopsis Dr. Sanford has, at best, only provided some evidence (a part of which is just 'theoretical' evidence) pertaining to a single claim of the primary axiom.
I don't think this proves much of anything.
That's the scientific process for you. Once an idea stops fitting then we move on to a new idea. Again, that isn't evidence for or against evolution or 'devolution".
I think a lot of post get mistaken for emotional ones. In fact I can't help but laugh, this is an emotion.
The relevance of how funny your comment was, was because of the video, if you haven't watched it yet then you would not get why I am laughing.
If not it doesn't bother me. I think a good laugh is a good laugh and if you did watch the video, even if you disregarded what they author of the video is saying about evolution, what stands out is how ornery the person leaving a message was.
I think it is funny not only because it makes all the people the caller is representing seem irrational, angry and overly emotional but because... well just watch it.
by Eng.M8 years ago
with no assumptions madecould anyone write links to some experiments and results those agreed to be prooving natural selection mechanismsI believe we went through this before but with no satsifactory experimental proofs...
by Csanad7 years ago
Which do you believe; the theory of evolution or the theory of devolution? Theory of devolution statTheory of devolution states that humans devolve their genetic materials from the perfects state of Adam and Eve.
by Baileybear7 years ago
gone from a primative, simple form to more complex...some things are lost...nothing is the same as it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10000 years ago.Things that have evolved...
by Daniel Gottlob3 years ago
Do zombies defecate?Do zombies poop or do they destroy matter and break laws of thermodynamics?
by Cecilia7 years ago
I find that people who think that the world and consciousness just emerged out of an accident don't realize what that means. It shows a lot of ignorance.First of all, nothing in your body, not even the strands of your...
by CJ Simonelli4 years ago
God is the Creator, as revealed to us throughout the living Word, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (1:20-21, Peter). The following are a few of the many proclamations about our Creator in the Word of God: "This...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.