Origins Thread

[AN2]

Another shit thread about the same fucking shite.

Have you cast your vote?

Yes, we see evolution in many areas, especially with a little human intervention to assist in the process otherwise the process continues randomly in accordance with environmental conditions etc etc.

But certainly, there is human evolution/devolution/dilution to be observed.

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/TIK0SuyMw8c

 

[Professor]

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/TIK0SuyMw8c

Here, an Englishman's account and how it feels to go through the process . . .


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGy9uomagO4

 

[AN2]

Here, an Englishman's account and how it feels to go through the process . . .


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGy9uomagO4

She's Korean!

 

[Professor]

She's Korean!

It could be kabukian, a warning about the future evolution of the human race, men losing their sperm count and heading to body morphing chop-houses to transform into geisha like the man you consider to be Korean, perhaps?

 

[AN2]

It could be kabukian, a warning about the future evolution of the human race, men losing their sperm count and heading to body morphing chop-houses to transform into geisha like the man you consider to be Korean, perhaps?

Man? I didn't see any men in the video I posted. And the question was - And you? Have you cast your vote yet?

Yes, we see evolution in many areas, especially with a little human intervention to assist in the process otherwise the process continues randomly in accordance with environmental conditions etc etc.

But certainly, there is human evolution/devolution/dilution to be observed.

You realise that that isn't really a thing, right?

Devolution (biology) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Yes, we see evolution in many areas, especially with a little human intervention to assist in the process otherwise the process continues randomly in accordance with environmental conditions etc etc.

But certainly, there is human evolution/devolution/dilution to be observed.

The question of devolution is interesting. I really wonder if rather than humans having evolved from some ape like species apes actually come from human stocks that devolved to the point of literally becoming sub-human.

I would accept there is evolution and devolution within a species and within particular stocks in that species but what I would not accept is one species evolving into a completely different and superior species.

 

[Professor]

You realise that that isn't really a thing, right?

It would be, at times before extinction and or specific future transformation (by design)

 

[AN2]

The question of devolution is interesting. I really wonder if rather than humans having evolved from some ape like species apes actually come from human stocks that devolved to the point of literally becoming sub-human.

No

Humans and other primates are distinct species

I would accept there is evolution and devolution within a species and within particular stocks in that species but what I would not accept is one species evolving into a completely different and superior species.

It would be, at times before extinction and or specific future transformation (by design)

There isn't a concept of, shall we say, backwards evolution

 

[Professor]

There isn't a concept of, shall we say, backwards evolution

How about useless eaters subsisting on tech, chemicals & insects? low sperm count becomes no sperm count
Others having their lifestyle, instincts and cultures altered by natural & artificial forced changes
Things do go backward depending on resources.

 

[AN2]

How about useless eaters subsisting on tech, chemicals & insects? low sperm count becomes no sperm count
Others having their lifestyle, instincts and cultures altered by natural & artificial forced changes
Things do go backward depending on resources.

I would say that evolution is comparable with time in the sense that it only knows one direction - forwards

Also the term highly evolved shouldn't be conflated or misconstrued with highly intelligent. There's no real reason to say that humans are more evolved than say, chimpanzees

 

[Professor]

I would say that evolution is comparable with time in the sense that it only knows one direction - forwards

Yes ok, you've got relevant up to date perspectives, so, do elaborate?

Also the term highly evolved shouldn't be conflated or misconstrued with highly intelligent. There's no real reason to say that humans are more evolved than say, chimpanzees

It's a vast subject.
Also the human race has evolved at a magnificent rate in the last 100, 200, 300 years in comparison to the previous 10,000 years.
So much to take into account

 

[AN2]

Yes ok, you've got relevant up to date perspectives, so, do elaborate?

I'm saying that there isn't backwards evolution

As per the wiki I posted above in post #9:

Dollo's law of irreversibility, first stated in 1893 by the palaeontologist Louis Dollo, denies the possibility of devolution. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains Dollo's law as being simply a statement about the improbability of evolution's following precisely the same path twice.

Also the human race has evolved at a magnificent rate in the last 100, 200, 300 years in comparison to the previous 10,000 years.

What makes you say that?

 

[Professor]

What makes you say that?

The numbers, the abilities, the values - witness the power exercised.

 

[AN2]

The numbers, the abilities, the values - witness the power exercised.

I don't see how that supports your supposition that we've (biologically) evolved at a magnificent rate in the last three hundred years in comparison to the previous ten thousand..

There's more of us, we're more technologically advanced, more socially constructed (for want of a better term)?

 

[Tiger]

James, for crying out loud….this thread is laughable—folks are debating our supposed 'evolution' over the past 300 years (???)

It's an embarrassment. Have any of you actually read a single piece of real literature on evolution in the past 20 years? Do any of ye read books at all, or just conjure nonsense in your own heads?

We have a spectacle of pseudo-intellectuals masquerading as authorities on evolution, yet displaying the comprehension of a gaggle of preteens swapping ghost stories on the playground. Ye bandy about scientific jargon like it’s magical incantation, wholly oblivious to the actual principles or the substantial evidence that the reality of 'evolutionary science' engages with.

It's as if they're collectively allergic to rigor, tossing out half-baked assertions with all the confidence of children who've just stumbled upon their first big secret.

Scarleh for ya.

 

[AN2]

James, for crying out loud….this thread is laughable—folks are debating our supposed 'evolution' over the past 300 years (???)

Uh, who is doing that? I am debating against @Professor's supposition. Try reading, for comprehension

 

[AN2]

It's an embarrassment. Have any of you actually read a single piece of real literature on evolution in the past 20 years? Do any of ye read books at all, or just conjure nonsense in your own heads?

And I hope this post makes sense, it should -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-118449

Why the f*ck would you read literature about evolution when you simply don't believe in it (as you answered in the poll)

That would be similar to me reading the Holy Koran to try to pick holes in it

 

[AN2]

Can anyone else who answered No in the poll (so far) tell me how much time they spend reading literature on evolution and keeping up-to-date with it, like @Tiger does?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

That would be similar to me reading the Holy Koran to try to pick holes in it

You do have (self appointed largely) people who believe that they are Christian apologists who spend much more of their time sorting through certain types of Islamic stuff (including the Koran) in order to attack than they do actually reading up on Christian things. To a much lesser extent you get the similar characters only this time focused on Rabbinic Judaism.

In a way I understand this- knowing how your enemy thinks and why in some situations can be much more helpful information than knowing the same things about your friends. However they never seem to point out from all their reading a really massive fault in all normative Islam outside of that of the Quranis (of Quran totally alone Muslims who reject all tradition basically) which is that the Quran teaches a completely different Theology of Revelation to what they believe.

A lot of Christians believe that the belief in evolution radically shapes and forms the contemporary world around us- therefore it is only natural that some of them would try to master this set of theories.

 

[AN2]

You do have (self appointed largely) people who believe that they are Christian apologists who spend much more of their time sorting through certain types of Islamic stuff (including the Koran) in order to attack than they do actually reading up on Christian things. To a much lesser extent you get the similar characters only this time focused on Rabbinic Judaism.

In a way I understand this- knowing how your enemy thinks and why in some situations can be much more helpful information than knowing the same things about your friends. However they never seem to point out from all their reading a really massive fault in all normative Islam outside of that of the Quranis (of Quran totally alone Muslims who reject all tradition basically) which is that the Quran teaches a completely different Theology of Revelation to what they believe.

A lot of Christians believe that the belief in evolution radically shapes and forms the contemporary world around us- therefore it is only natural that some of them would try to master this set of theories.

"That would be similar to me reading the Holy Koran to try to pick holes in it"

I am not a Christian. I am an atheist. I don't read any holy books

 

[Tiger]

And I hope this post makes sense, it should -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-118449

Why the f*ck would you read literature about evolution when you simply don't believe in it (as you answered in the poll)

That would be similar to me reading the Holy Koran to try to pick holes in it

I read literature on evolution because understanding opposing views sharpens one’s own perspective.

Dismissing a field without examining its foundations is like refusing to learn math because you don’t like numbers— it’s about informed disagreement. If you’re confident in your views, then studying other perspectives shouldn’t threaten them—it should make them stronger.

Maybe if a few of ye had bothered to crack open a book on evolution now and then and also read about some of the challenges to Darwinian evolution theory, then we wouldn’t be subjected to the ignominious spectacle of this thread —debates about 'devolving into primates' and musings on our supposed 'evolution' over the last 300 years.

It’s like watching the PG Tips chimpanzees having a tea party, except with less charm and far less insight. Engaging with real literature might spare us this comedy of errors, where half-baked ideas get served up with all the sophistication of a playground rumor

 

[AN2]

I read literature on evolution because understanding opposing views sharpens one’s own perspective.

Dismissing a field without examining its foundations is like refusing to learn math because you don’t like numbers— it’s about informed disagreement. If you’re confident in your views, then studying other perspectives shouldn’t threaten them—it should make them stronger.

Maybe if a few of ye had bothered to crack open a book on evolution now and then and also read about some of the challenges to Darwinian evolution theory, then we wouldn’t be subjected to the ignominious spectacle of this thread —debates about 'devolving into primates' and musings on our supposed 'evolution' over the last 300 years.

It’s like watching the PG Tips chimpanzees having a tea party, except with less charm and far less insight. Engaging with real literature might spare us this comedy of errors, where half-baked ideas get served up with all the sophistication of a playground rumor

You think being a (mindless) 'skeptic' is a challenge to "Darwinian evolution theory".

Can you give an example of one of these "challenges" that has led you to not believe in evolution?

 

[AN2]

I read literature on evolution because understanding opposing views sharpens one’s own perspective.

Dismissing a field without examining its foundations is like refusing to learn math because you don’t like numbers— it’s about informed disagreement. If you’re confident in your views, then studying other perspectives shouldn’t threaten them—it should make them stronger.

Maybe if a few of ye had bothered to crack open a book on evolution now and then and also read about some of the challenges to Darwinian evolution theory, then we wouldn’t be subjected to the ignominious spectacle of this thread

—debates about 'devolving into primates' and musings on our supposed 'evolution' over the last 300 years.

And, once again, that isn't what I am saying

Even with instruction, you're fucken hopeless

It’s like watching the PG Tips chimpanzees having a tea party, except with less charm and far less insight. Engaging with real literature might spare us this comedy of errors, where half-baked ideas get served up with all the sophistication of a playground rumor

 

[AN2]

So, first, people are entitled to express their views here, you won't get your posts deleted or banned like in @Tiger's thread. And I'm entitled to correct them

I don't believe that there has been any "magnificent rate of change" in human evolution in the last three hundred years and in fact, if you go back ten thousand years I think that we were more or less the finished article - as today.

There have been some changes, we're taller, we live longer.. But these aren't necessarily attributed to evolution (by natural selection)

 

[Professor]

James, for crying out loud….this thread is laughable—folks are debating our supposed 'evolution' over the past 300 years (???)

Why not, things have changed for the individual and species greatly in the last 300 years, no?

We have a spectacle of pseudo-intellectuals masquerading as authorities on evolution, yet displaying the comprehension of a gaggle of preteens swapping ghost stories on the playground. Ye bandy about scientific jargon like it’s magical incantation, wholly oblivious to the actual principles or the substantial evidence that the reality of 'evolutionary science' engages with.

We're having a chat and using our own heads, it's no big deal.

There are various and unexpected perspectives which need to be examined.

 

[AN2]

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/fIBGJWjOoIA

 

[clarke-connolly]

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/fIBGJWjOoIA

Human Females ( especially Young Women ) are extremely funny = = Pretty much everything they do is to, get / attract, the highest %, Status / Achiever Male that they can, while at the same time often pretending to " Hate " Males ! ! !

 

[AN2]

Human Females ( especially Young Women ) are extremely funny = = Pretty much everything they do is to, get / attract, the highest %, Status / Achiever Male that they can, while at the same time often pretending to " Hate " Males ! ! !

Well, if you have a YouTube a/c and you're pressing play on those videos.. K-pop is now part of your world (it's the algorithms)

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Can anyone else who answered No in the poll (so far) tell me how much time they spend reading literature on evolution and keeping up-to-date with it, like @Tiger does?

I have "Creationist" scientific polemics somewhere around the house that my sister gave me but I haven't delved into them outside of the odd skim. Basically I think the honest answer on my part to your question would be none at all.

How much do you think your belief in evolution has formed your world view?

 

[AN2]

I have "Creationist" scientific polemics somewhere around the house that my sister gave me but I haven't delved into them outside of the odd skim. Basically I think the honest answer on my part to your question would be none at all.

As I would expect. @Tiger fancies himself as a bit of a scientist tho

How much do you think your belief in evolution has formed your world view?

I have a bad feeling that you're going to tell me that my worldview is atheism

I don't believe in evolution because I don't believe in God, I don't believe in God because I believe in evolution.

One doesn't really inform the other. That's more of a theistic worldview, that theists transpose onto atheists (not least because so many theists don't know what atheism is)

 

[AN2]

You've got to remember you're dealing with Jambo, a white supremacist. So realise that this "debate" has already been done to death, thousands of times, on boards like this, round and round, in all of the white supremacist circles. You see Jambo's been imbibing it for years on youtube and Telegram. It basically goes along the following lines:



You see Darwin wrote things like,

"... The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aboriginal] and the gorilla."

Or,

"... With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage...".

- On another thread on here Jambo said he thought I was "afraid" to answer the polling question. So I stuck my head in against my better judgement.

Of course as I suspected the question as phrased is nonsense.

He's clueless as always. He's basically asking you do you agree with his white supremacy theory.

lol From chess to evolution, it's all about my white supremacy

As Evalion (there's a blast from the past) used to say - Stay sane

Because he has no idea for example that Darwin's theory encompassed not only evolution "as such", which was nothing new -

Goethe for example scientifically discovered the evolution of the human being from the ape

This is always a red flag that someone doesn't know WTF they're talking about when it comes to evolution..

We aren't evolved from apes, you dolt, we are apes. A great one

years earlier. He doesn't realise for example that Darwin's theory also encompassed other elements like common descent; gradualism; multiplication of species; and finally you have your natural selection (i.e. you have mutations, randomly generated and stored in the mixed gene pool of the population, and then what Darwin termed "natural selection" will work to eliminate those alternatives which are unfavourable from the point of view of something like survival).

The key turning point though in the theory's popularity was when Herbert Spencer subsequently came up with the phrase, "Survival of the Fittest", which everyone thought was just great (especially in view of the then stage of the industrial revolution, and the need of capitalists to affirm the ethics of it, though that was not the only reason). And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

I have a bad feeling that you're going to tell me that my worldview is atheism

I don't believe in evolution because I don't believe in God, I don't believe in God because I believe in evolution.

One doesn't really inform the other. That's more of a theistic worldview, that theists transpose onto atheists (not least because so many theists don't know what atheism is)

No, atheism is can be a component of very divergent worldviews from that of an "orthodox" Marxist to that of a McDaisyC to that of a Dr Revilo P Oliver.

You can be believe in a God and believe in evolution- true. However belief in evolution is not logically compatible with Christian Revelation.

A huge problem is that mainstream Catholicism in Southern Ireland often teaches kids that God is almost this Cosmic teddy bear and than turns around a teaches them evolution which is obviously going to create massive cognitive dissonance.

 

[AN2]

No, atheism is can be a component of very divergent worldviews from that of an "orthodox" Marxist to that of a McDaisyC to that of a Dr Revilo P Oliver.

You can be believe in a God and believe in evolution- true. However belief in evolution is not logically compatible with Christian Revelation.

A huge problem is that mainstream Catholicism in Southern Ireland often teaches kids that God is almost this Cosmic teddy bear and than turns around a teaches them evolution which is obviously going to create massive cognitive dissonance.

I'm not basing my belief in things scientific on whether I believe in God. Whereas theists do. This is essentially why I call out frauds like @Tiger

 

[AN2]

James Tour, anyone remember him, from the original uncensored thread?

Yep, another fraud


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zN5vEo3iTH8

And he's not even Christian, he's a Jew

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Why are you interested in this shyte Sparky?

 

[AN2]

Why are you interested in this shyte Sparky?

I don't agree with your assessment

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

So far three devout Catholics have voted against evolution.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

So far three devout Catholics have voted against evolution.

Are you sure that @Hermit is a Catholic?

 

[AN2]

So far three devout Catholics have voted against evolution.

Thanks

What do you think of Richard Dawkins, Myler?

 

[AN2]

Are you sure that @Hermit is a Catholic?

He says he isn't but of course he is. Christian at least