View Poll Results: Do you belive in Evolution

Voters
175. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    128 73.14%
  • No

    47 26.86%
Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2429303132333435 LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 347

Thread: Do You Believe in Evolution?

  1. #331
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,382
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    15
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    51
    Thanked in
    30 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Aelfgar View Post
    Why are mutations necessarily bad if they increase adaptability?
    That mutations are always bad seems to be a classical ID "argument", however, we can observer the opposite quite well in bacteria and their resistance to antibiotics.
    The most common birth defect in humans also counters the usual gibberish about a decrease in information from gene alterations: Trisomy 21, and there is of course: Trisomy 3q, Trisomy 9p, Trisomy 10p und Trisomy 12p, Trisomy 8, Trisomy 9 and Trisomy 18.
    Those gene defects do result in a non-functioning human, however, it gives room for further mutations.

    And Darwinism isn't the only theory of Evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Schindewolf
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jäger For This Useful Post:


  3. #332
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Friday, August 31st, 2018 @ 10:50 AM
    Ethnicity
    france-german-italian
    Ancestry
    france-german-italian
    Country
    Switzerland Switzerland
    State
    Ticino Ticino
    Location
    switzerland
    Gender
    Family
    married
    Occupation
    manager
    Politics
    conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    35
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Current evolution theory has nothing to do with science.

  4. #333
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    25 Minutes Ago @ 02:06 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    398
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    85
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    139
    Thanked in
    82 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    That mutations are always bad seems to be a classical ID "argument", however, we can observer the opposite quite well in bacteria and their resistance to antibiotics.
    No, it isn't. The argument is that mutations are an insufficient means for having new organs and systems emerge in an organism.

    Concerning the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, there are two possible problems with that argument:
    1. The resistance to antibiotics in bacteria isn't due to mutation, it's the original bacteria that was already resistant. What the antibiotics do is stop the mutated bacteria from reproducing.
    2. A mutation that gives the bacteria resistance to antibiotics can come with other problems, since genetic code can actually be an input to several different processes within the organism. As an analogy: A mutation prevents teeth from growing, hence that organism is from now on "resistant" to tooth decay.

    Bear in mind Mutation = damage to genetic code; commonly a copying mistake. It's like damages to a self-copying computer program code. And from that we are expecting new software to arise. Evolutionists expect new accounting programs and computer games to arise from simple self copying algorithms, whose emergence they can't and don't want to have to explain in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    The most common birth defect in humans also counters the usual gibberish about a decrease in information from gene alterations: Trisomy 21, and there is of course: Trisomy 3q, Trisomy 9p, Trisomy 10p und Trisomy 12p, Trisomy 8, Trisomy 9 and Trisomy 18.
    Those gene defects do result in a non-functioning human, however, it gives room for further mutations.
    And Darwinism isn't the only theory of Evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Schindewolf
    Eh, no. Under a regime of natural selection those severe birth defects result in early death and non-reproduction. That boils down to total loss of any information carried.

    The concept of information as used by ID proponents is a bit difficult to grasp. It's more than just data floating around. Information here means meaningful, useful design features of an organism or rather the respective code for producing it in the organism. The question of the debate is: How did it come into being? Is there an intelligent source for it (design inference)? Or did it just happen as result of a chain of unintelligent physical processes that have no intelligent source as they can also be observed under lab conditions without the interference of intelligent agents (evolutionary hypothesis) ?

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Theunissen For This Useful Post:


  6. #334
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,382
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    15
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    51
    Thanked in
    30 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theunissen View Post
    Concerning the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, there are two possible problems with that argument:
    1. The resistance to antibiotics in bacteria isn't due to mutation, it's the original bacteria that was already resistant. What the antibiotics do is stop the mutated bacteria from reproducing.
    2. A mutation that gives the bacteria resistance to antibiotics can come with other problems, since genetic code can actually be an input to several different processes within the organism. As an analogy: A mutation prevents teeth from growing, hence that organism is from now on "resistant" to tooth decay.
    1. How would some bacteria cells be immune and the others are not? Do you know how bacteria replicate? They are single cell organisms! A bacteria makes a copy of itself, then how can a certain cell be different to its siblings? Mutation!
    We can observer imunisation in the Petri-dish starting from one single cell of bacteria! This is not just in humans who get treatment, but a very controlled laboratory experiment.
    2. Yes, it can and it can not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theunissen View Post
    Eh, no. Under a regime of natural selection those severe birth defects result in early death and non-reproduction. That boils down to total loss of any information carried.
    That's why I wrote it gives room for additional mutations.
    Fact is: we can observe the increase of Chromosoms.
    Fact is: we can observe (advantageous) mutations.
    Conclusion is: an organism can increase its number of Chromosomes and change the order of its genetic code (even advantageously).

    The factual premise for Evolution is there. Then we have findings of life forms which indicate change (and similar genetic code): the evidence supports the logical conclusion from this premise.

    Yes, most mutations are negative, but we only need a few positive ones anyway. Schindewolf speculated that catastrophic events (e.g. the flipping magnetic field of Earth) are needed to increase the amount of mutations and thus to increase the chance of advantageous ones.
    To postulate that no mutation is/was successful at all has no empirical or logical basis and is "I want it to be true" bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theunissen View Post
    The concept of information as used by ID proponents is a bit difficult to grasp. It's more than just data floating around.
    Yes, I already said that religions, as well as ID, define what they need to be true to say its true. Tautologies all around.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jäger For This Useful Post:


  8. #335
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    814
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    28
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    49
    Thanked in
    18 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    Furthermore: most of us want to stay alive quite badly. Since many religions promise advancement/relief/virgins/etc. in the afterlife, life is a theological problem and the obvious answer is suicide. Thus Christianity had to make suicide a sin, and Islam put strict conditions on it.

    So I wouldn't say that it is our subjective judgement to call life advancement, but there is objectively no other way to advance without assumptions about an afterlife. We can only observe life, not not-life. So:
    Yes, by subjective I didn't mean that it is without foundation, but that this foundation is not absolute. It is dependent on the subject, i.e. those who are alive. Perhaps it is objective in the sense that it is intersubjectively true, but that's the best we can do. I do not want to argue that life and death have equal value, but that in order to establish the value of life the notion of evolution is not a sufficient point of reference. I think the 'subjective' truth of life as advancement is actually illustrated by your examples of religion. For Christianity to consider life valuable, it is dependent on an external cause that is the originator of this value. Suicide is a sin because you sin against God given life. Without such a transcendent justification of life (and we need a justification of life in order for its continuity to be considered advancement) there would be no reason to prefer life over death. Without actually embracing this specific christian position, I fail to see how evolutionary theory can replace this justification, since - like I initially put forward - life and death are equal outcomes of natural selection.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    From observation, logic and instinct.
    These are methods to attain them, but that doesn't bring us any closer to an answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    I am not sure what your point is though. As it is with all knowledge we gain: we might be wrong.
    I attempted to answer this in the text above. Perhaps as an addition: I am not debating the truth of the knowledge we gain by studying evolution, which I tend to accept. I'm rather putting to discussion its scope.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Bernhard For This Useful Post:


  10. #336
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Gefjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,343
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    49
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    129
    Thanked in
    65 Posts
    What do anti-evolutionists say about this, eh?

    Rapid Evolution Is Real…These Species Changed in Front of Our Eyes

    Evolution doesn’t have to take a hundred millennia. Some species can biologically adapt to new environments in a few short years, here’s how.

    The evolutionary process is commonly understood as one that takes hundreds of thousands of years. For some species, however, we’re seeing evolution happen much faster. This is what’s called rapid evolution where major environmental changes in predation, food, or climate can alter the natural selection to favor genes that were previously disadvantaged. It can happen in a very short amount of time.

    For example, in a period of five years, male Polynesian field crickets in Hawaii lost their ability to make noise to avoid parasitic attacks. This is one of the fastest evolutions in the wild ever recorded. One gene mutation led to a silent cricket, and the silence helped it avoid the parasitic attacks that were killing other crickets.

    Unfortunately, there was an issue. The female crickets preferred the song, so without it the silent males needed to change their behavior. They started shadowing the singing males and mating with the attracted females, therefore passing on their mutation. This is an example of rapid evolution. The process took just 5 years! And now, 90% of the population is songless.

    This fast-moving evolution isn't what Charles Darwin envisioned back in 1859. He thought any changes would take many generations, which sounds like a long time -- but it doesn’t have to be. Darwin knew very little about genetics. He was observing patterns in the wild, but he couldn’t pinpoint how long evolution could take. But now, with advances in modern tech and molecular biology, scientists can.

    https://www.seeker.com/videos/earth/...nt-of-our-eyes

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gefjon For This Useful Post:


  12. #337
    Senior Member Ward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 07:16 AM
    Ethnicity
    Vinlandic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 1/4 Norwegian, 1/4 Irish
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    The Wild Frontier
    Gender
    Posts
    692
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    23
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    26
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    1. So we can say that to consider life as advancement from an evolutionary perspective cannot be objectively established (it's not 'desired by evolution'), but subjectively: as we are subjects of evolution and alive, we posit the continuity of life as advancement.

    2. In doing so we turn is into ought. It's the famous problem of Hume. But then the question arises in response to the following:

    When men select (on the basis of knowledge gained by studying evolution) where do their criteria come from? Since they go beyond what is and start to determine what ought to be by themselves, they cannot simply take these criteria from the process of evolution, which only establishes what is. So the telos is derived from somewhere else even though it is realized by way of evolution.
    I read the Wikipedia article that you linked to, and while I understand Hume's argument, it's difficult for me to accept the notion that the "ought" can be severed from the "is". From an evolutionary perspective, when someone says what ought to be, he is saying something that can could influence future events. If someone claims that communism ought to be, he isn't actually going beyond what is, he is expressing a certain mutation of human thought that will compete with other mutations.

    We can use our recognition of evolution in the same way that we use our recognition of seasonal changes. At some point in history, man recognized the pattern of seasonal changes, and from this recognition he began planning his food and shelter activities to increase his chance of survival. In evolution we recognize a pattern of life and death, and we can also use this recognition to increase our chances of survival. We have enough evidence to assume the existence of a general survival instinct, but due to thought mutations as to "what ought to be," some people strive for communism, some people for free markets, some people for Germanic life, and so on; but of course for most people, "what ought to be" is whatever societal leaders say it should be.

    In any case, Hume poses an interesting thought experiment, and I'm pretty sure that's why you brought it up. But until we unlock the secrets of the entire universe and ascertain the ultimate telos (if such a thing exists outside of our minds), we should probably just operate under the assumption that life is preferable to death. And while evolutionary theory cannot give us all the answers, it can and does discredit certain religions and belief systems that claim to have all the answers. One thing it does not discredit, however, is a belief in blood and race.
    — Always outnumbered but never outclassed —

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ward For This Useful Post:


  14. #338
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    25 Minutes Ago @ 02:06 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    398
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    85
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    139
    Thanked in
    82 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gefjon View Post
    What do anti-evolutionists say about this, eh?
    https://www.seeker.com/videos/earth/...nt-of-our-eyes
    Well, that's simply semantic bull$hit they are using there. What one really is dealing in the mentioned cases is:
    - Epigenetics, traits that can be switched on or off over a few generation.
    - natural variety that changes in dominance.

    That's all stuff that isn't really in dispute in the Evolution debate.
    But it's ZERO proof that there was anything like Mud-to-Moderator Evolution in the past.

  15. #339
    Mein Glaube ist die Liebe zu meinem Volk. Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 11:58 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,527
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    252
    Thanked in
    123 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theunissen View Post
    But it's ZERO proof that there was anything like Mud-to-Moderator Evolution in the past.
    Isn't that what your Bible literally claims? Humans made of mud?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bleyer View Post
    Hold on a minute. Natural selection is not evolution. For microbes, fish or apes to involve into man (which is what evolution skeptics doubt happened), there must be new information adeed. Natural selection does not add any new information. Natural selection only changes the proportion of organisms in an environment, i.e. it picks the stronger, or better adaptive, and allows it to survive.
    Generally speaking now, why do Creationists think their claim that "mutations don't add new information" or "all mutations are harmful/defects" is actually an argument(and apparently the only one they have)? It betrays a lack of basic understanding of how DNA is actually composed.

    Very simply put in this link:

    A useful analogy to help you conceptualize this is to think about letters in the alphabet. The English language has 26 letters (bases), and we combine those letters to from words (amino acids). We then arrange those words into sentences (proteins), and we arrange those sentences into paragraphs (tissues). Ultimately, we can use those paragraphs to make books, essays, etc. (organisms). Now, according to creationists’ reasoning, it should be impossible to make any new information by simply rearranging those 26 letters, but that is clearly absurd. We can arrange them one way and produce the works of Shakespeare. We can arrange them another way and produce “The Origin of the Species.” We can rearrange them yet again and produce the script to a Stargate episode. Indeed, there are a virtually infinite set of possibilities, each of which contains different information, and the situation is no different for DNA. We can arrange the bases one way and get a dinosaur, and we can rearrange that code (via mutations) and get a chicken. We can rearrange it yet again and get a whale, human, tree, bacteria, mushroom, etc. This notion that making new arrangements of the four existing bases doesn’t produce new information is absurd because everyone agrees that different arrangements of those bases produce very different organisms.


    A big part of the problem here once again comes back to the definition of the word “new.” Creationists seem to think that evolution requires something that is completely and totally novel, such as a new base pair or, at the very least, an entirely new amino acid that has never existed anywhere before, but that is a straw man fallacy. Evolution does not require something that has never previously existed anywhere. Rather, it simply needs to have variation. Thus, any change to the genetic code is “new information” in an evolutionary sense, because it provides variation. A useful way to think about this is that evolution doesn’t need “new” information. Rather, it needs “different” information. In other words, all that it needs is a code that is different than the one that was there before.
    A few other links:

    Evolution of new information

    Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information

    Another problem seems to be, that Creationists somehow think these evolutionary processes happened all of a sudden and that, for example, an ape suddenly decided/became a full formed human. Whereas in reality, these processes were - or rather, are because evolution never stops - gradual and took millions or at least hundreds of thousands of years. But I suppose that's hard to understand when someone believes the world is only 6000 years old.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bleyer View Post
    This depends from whose angle you look at it. Let's take intelligence, for example. Blacks have on average, lower IQs than whites and Asians. From a black person's POV, mixing with a white or Asian person could be "upbreeding". Whites have lower IQs than Asians. From a white person's POV, mixing with an Asian person could be "upbreeding". And this is happening to a degree, there are such trends already. When you preach evolutionism, everybody wants to be "the fittest". There is no more God, no more rules, no more moral code to live by, no eternal judgment, no deterrment for people to engage in such behaviors. For, what stops you?
    First of all, raw IQ is not everything. It's also a question of how you use it and for what end. Asians(or rather a special subset of them) on average are more intelligent but seem to lack that special creativity inherent to Europeans. Bodily, we're also obviously more powerful.
    I don't need a God to tell me what is wrong or what is right. I only need to look at our achievements and then at those of others to see(or the lack thereof), that mixing would be wrong. Besides my entire lack of sexual interest into non-Whites. So both logic and natural instinct tell me it's wrong. Whether I accept evolution theory as a fact is entirely irrelevant to this.



    By the way, when did this forum become a sink for all sort of ridiculous, easily refuted ideas like flat earth, flat moon, Vikernes' "Europeans are mostly mutated Neanderthaler" theory, there is no climate change and so on. People who lack basic knowledge about these things would do much better for our cause by staying silent and simply clinging to our common basis of nationalism. Because with this stuff you're making all of us look collectively like idiots and probably drives away most halfway intelligent people. No wonder few people take us serious.
    "Stürzten wir wohl im Dunkel – wir starben nicht! Immer war Sehnsucht die Straße und Ziel das Licht.
    Immer war Kraft wie lebendiges Bauernkorn, Immer wehte die Fahne des Glaubens vorn.
    Tausend Jahre war Deutschland der Hölle nah – Tausend Jahre sprach Gott zu Deutschland: Ja!"

    Ancient DNA: List of All Studies analyzing DNA of Ancient Tribes and Ethnicities(post-2010)


  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Juthunge For This Useful Post:


  17. #340
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    25 Minutes Ago @ 02:06 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    398
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    85
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    139
    Thanked in
    82 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Isn't that what your Bible literally claims? Humans made of mud?.....
    Actually, if you broaden that a bit, that's what both Creationists as well as (Materialist) Evolutionists claim.
    The difference is that Creationists would insist that a creator needs to be involved in that, while Evolutionists say it just happened as some sort of coincidence.

    The argument is that it doesn't simply happen just like that as a result of physical laws under a regime of randomness applied to whatever atoms.

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution by Cultural Changes
    By Halldorr in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, December 26th, 2011, 09:02 PM
  2. What is the value of evolution?
    By SouthernBoy in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005, 02:57 PM
  3. Human Evolution: Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 08:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •