Evolution, not a fact??????
- Thread starter john smith
- Start date
S/L:
Good day to you, and let me summarize before it goes into a tangential discussion.
Darwin's theory states that life is a struggle and the most fit members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information.
Facts:
--All species age and their virility and disease resistance typically decreases with old age.
--All known organisms eventually die.
-- Even if an organism did not age it would eventually die from something.
--There are several causes of death which include old age, diseases, accidents, predatory attacks, starvation, organ malfunctions, etc., etc.
Postulate:
Given the facts, would it be a "bad" evolutionary outcome if an organism became more disease resistant, increased its longevity (and consequently its virility), or in some other way it developed a trait that increased its odds of surviving and passing on its genetic information?
Logical answer: Longevity, increased virility, and more disease resitance would not be bad outcomes (or would they?)
Questions: Then why do all species age? Why is aging a "necessary" outcome if survivability, virility, and disease resistance are good traits according to Darwin's theory? Can anyone give an example of a species that died out because it had "too much longevity" or too much disease resistance, or too much virility?
If longevity, virility, and disease resistance aren't "fit" traits then tell me what is a fit trait. How do you distinguish? Is Darwin's theory false as stated, and the term "fitness" needs to be redefined as well as the driving forces that make evolution work? Should Darwin's whole theory be canned for a better "scientific" explanation?
My Conclusion: Evolutionary theory does not explain why ALL organisms age. There is some other physical phenomena involved that has nothing to do with evolution, thus making evolution irrelevant for explaining two of the most basic questions:
How life started and why ALL life ages.
Good day to you, and let me summarize before it goes into a tangential discussion.
Darwin's theory states that life is a struggle and the most fit members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information.
Facts:
--All species age and their virility and disease resistance typically decreases with old age.
--All known organisms eventually die.
-- Even if an organism did not age it would eventually die from something.
--There are several causes of death which include old age, diseases, accidents, predatory attacks, starvation, organ malfunctions, etc., etc.
Postulate:
Given the facts, would it be a "bad" evolutionary outcome if an organism became more disease resistant, increased its longevity (and consequently its virility), or in some other way it developed a trait that increased its odds of surviving and passing on its genetic information?
Logical answer: Longevity, increased virility, and more disease resitance would not be bad outcomes (or would they?)
Questions: Then why do all species age? Why is aging a "necessary" outcome if survivability, virility, and disease resistance are good traits according to Darwin's theory? Can anyone give an example of a species that died out because it had "too much longevity" or too much disease resistance, or too much virility?
If longevity, virility, and disease resistance aren't "fit" traits then tell me what is a fit trait. How do you distinguish? Is Darwin's theory false as stated, and the term "fitness" needs to be redefined as well as the driving forces that make evolution work? Should Darwin's whole theory be canned for a better "scientific" explanation?
My Conclusion: Evolutionary theory does not explain why ALL organisms age. There is some other physical phenomena involved that has nothing to do with evolution, thus making evolution irrelevant for explaining two of the most basic questions:
How life started and why ALL life ages.
Last edited:
Firstly we should point out an error in this quote. You say: "(and consequently it's virility)", but alas that is a mistake.
Scientists have been able to extend the life of rodents by 40% by putting them on a near starvation diet, (but of course giving them vitamins and minerals). They have also been able to modify genes to extend the life of worms, fruit flies and yeast. Unfortunately one of the problems seems to be that they become infertile.
Such as?
Remember also that evolution is not personal choice. Yes, most humans would probably love to be able to fly, but that doesn't mean we're going to. It's also worth noting that evolution is not an over night activity.
If it were down to personal choice, perhaps. Of course increased virility makes for more competition and less resources as does increased age, and while disease resistance would certainly be welcome, 'disease' mutates and evolves faster than animals do.
Several choices:
1) Free radicals, (a downside of breathing)
2) The browning reaction
3) Pre programmed genome
Who said it was necessary?
I'd have to say I don't know.
You're assuming you have a say in the matter.
That's going a bit far.
Well maybe one day we'll all evolve to be immortal. Then what?
It's well worth noting that evolution is not about "how life started". If you've only just figured that out you haven't been paying attention. As for why we age, there are a couple of options above.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Damned right you have. I abhor ignorance.Woody said:
English does not come much plainer than the expression bugger all. Perhaps if I used an even more robust Anglo Saxon term and said fuck all the meaning would become clear.Woody said:
The poll says very cleary "Do you believe in evolution?" It says nothing about the origin of life. The ambiguity is in your mind. It appears to be their because you are approaching this issue with a preconceived notion that the origin of life and the nature of evolution are virtually synonymous.Woody said:
You have major comprehension problems, don't you. Identify where in my post I state that aging is necessary for evolutionary theory to work. Evolutionary theory would work almost as well if death occured through accident and predation only. What aging does is help speed up generational cycles, which in turn increases the rate of evolution.Woody said:
Hypothetical, hence irrelevant.Woody said:
Where have I said this. You are erecting strawmen. If you are doing this deliberately please desist. If you are doing it through ignorance, get an education.Woody said:
S/L said: Firstly we should point out an error in this quote. You say: "(and consequently it's virility)", but alas that is a mistake.
Woody: PLease don't misquote me here. I'll re-quote myself "All species age and their virility and disease resistance typically decreases with old age."
If you look at my original statement, I said this was the "typical outcome." ie that virility and disease resistance typically decreases with old age. A good example is human beings that become impotent, go through menopause, etc. The example you gave with rodents is another outcome, but it does not invalidate my original ststement.
S/L said: Who said it (aging) was necessary?
Woody says: Perhaps I should take a poll. The last evolution believer I spoke to (Ophi) appears to believe it. Others have stated the same -- rather defensively I might ad.
S/L says: Well maybe one day we'll all evolve to be immortal. Then what?
Woody says: As you said, "that's not for us to choose," but it shouldn't be ruled out as a possibility. As I originally stated, all organisms will die regardless of the aging process, yet all organisms age. Given that 100% of all organisms age, aging appears to be a physical requirement that is not governed by evolution.
S/L says (concerning a hypothetical species thaty never aged): I'd have to say I don't know.
Woody says: Your answer is indeed fair enough. It should be fairly easy to proove a species never aged, by looking at the fossil record.
S/L says (regarding my statement opposed to Darwin's original theory): That's going a bit far.
Woody says: How so? I asked for a definition of "fitness" that resolves the apparant inconsistencies regarding disease resistance, virility, and longevity. If they aren't "fit" traits, then what is?
Woody: PLease don't misquote me here. I'll re-quote myself "All species age and their virility and disease resistance typically decreases with old age."
If you look at my original statement, I said this was the "typical outcome." ie that virility and disease resistance typically decreases with old age. A good example is human beings that become impotent, go through menopause, etc. The example you gave with rodents is another outcome, but it does not invalidate my original ststement.
S/L said: Who said it (aging) was necessary?
Woody says: Perhaps I should take a poll. The last evolution believer I spoke to (Ophi) appears to believe it. Others have stated the same -- rather defensively I might ad.
S/L says: Well maybe one day we'll all evolve to be immortal. Then what?
Woody says: As you said, "that's not for us to choose," but it shouldn't be ruled out as a possibility. As I originally stated, all organisms will die regardless of the aging process, yet all organisms age. Given that 100% of all organisms age, aging appears to be a physical requirement that is not governed by evolution.
S/L says (concerning a hypothetical species thaty never aged): I'd have to say I don't know.
Woody says: Your answer is indeed fair enough. It should be fairly easy to proove a species never aged, by looking at the fossil record.
S/L says (regarding my statement opposed to Darwin's original theory): That's going a bit far.
Woody says: How so? I asked for a definition of "fitness" that resolves the apparant inconsistencies regarding disease resistance, virility, and longevity. If they aren't "fit" traits, then what is?
I didn't misquote you at all. Here is your statement:
Given the facts, would it be a "bad" evolutionary outcome if an organism became more disease resistant, increased its longevity (and consequently its virility).
Notice the last few words in brackets and then notice the words I quoted you as saying, also in brackets. You will find they are identical - thus no misquote occured.
That's because you've become a little confused and think I'm responding to something that I am not.
His last post seems to dispute that.
I have provided a couple of reasons for it on my last post.
So then do it, although I'm puzzled as to what you think it would achieve.
That's hardly for you or me to decide. I personally think a 'fit' trait would be no longer needing to poo. I consider it an absolute waste of time. However, my personal opinion on what is or isn't a 'fit' trait is of no consequence or relevance to anything.
Further to which, (as I mentioned a couple of times), disease mutates and evolves aswell - and faster than animals do. I also explained a couple of problems with virility and longevity. Need I explain it again?
Suffice it to say: your opinion, my opinion, Joe Blog's opinion on what is or isn't a 'fit' trait is completely without worth.
Woody:
Blatantly false. Evolution =/= abiogenesis. [insult removed]
Your argument = strawman. [insult removed]
Last edited by a moderator:
S/L said: Who said it (aging) was necessary?
Woody says: Most evolutionists I have spoken with say it is necessary, otherwise the planet would be overpopulated. Haven't you heard this before?
S/L said (about the definition of a fit trait)That's hardly for you or me to decide. I personally think a 'fit' trait would be no longer needing to poo. I consider it an absolute waste of time. However, my personal opinion on what is or isn't a 'fit' trait is of no consequence or relevance to anything.
Woody says: So nobody can decide what a "fit" trait is, and "nobody" must include Darwin as well. A theory without a definition -- now isn't that just grand!
=====================================================
Mountainhare said:
M/H said: "Blatantly false. Evolution =/= abiogenesis. You = retard."
Woody says: Your self-effacing attempts to belittle my intellectual capabilities aren't appreciated.
I originally said:
"To prove whether the complete theory of evolution is true someone needs to create life from inert elements. This would prove that life can proceed forth without a supernatural power."
You purposfully omitted the most important point -- the litmus test for proving or disproving the alternative point of view, i.e. creationism. My statement simply says creationism is not relevant if life can proceed without the assistance of a supernatural power. Hence this gives evolution more credence if not outright proof, because the alternative hypothesis (creationism) is disproven.
Is this not a reasonable point for someone to make?
=====================================================
Ophi:
You don't believe in a supernatural explanation for the origin of life, now do you? Enough of your smoke and mirrors. :bugeye:
I find no common ground for a discussion with you, intelligent or otherwise.
======================================================
Woody says: Most evolutionists I have spoken with say it is necessary, otherwise the planet would be overpopulated. Haven't you heard this before?
S/L said (about the definition of a fit trait)That's hardly for you or me to decide. I personally think a 'fit' trait would be no longer needing to poo. I consider it an absolute waste of time. However, my personal opinion on what is or isn't a 'fit' trait is of no consequence or relevance to anything.
Woody says: So nobody can decide what a "fit" trait is, and "nobody" must include Darwin as well. A theory without a definition -- now isn't that just grand!
=====================================================
Mountainhare said:
”
M/H said: "Blatantly false. Evolution =/= abiogenesis. You = retard."
Woody says: Your self-effacing attempts to belittle my intellectual capabilities aren't appreciated.
I originally said:
"To prove whether the complete theory of evolution is true someone needs to create life from inert elements. This would prove that life can proceed forth without a supernatural power."
You purposfully omitted the most important point -- the litmus test for proving or disproving the alternative point of view, i.e. creationism. My statement simply says creationism is not relevant if life can proceed without the assistance of a supernatural power. Hence this gives evolution more credence if not outright proof, because the alternative hypothesis (creationism) is disproven.
Is this not a reasonable point for someone to make?
=====================================================
Ophi:
You don't believe in a supernatural explanation for the origin of life, now do you? Enough of your smoke and mirrors. :bugeye:
I find no common ground for a discussion with you, intelligent or otherwise.
======================================================
Last edited:
Woody:
Wow, you are quite... verbose, when you want to be, eh? Too bad that that won't save your ass. You belittle your own intellectual capabilities when you associate the theory of evolution with abiogenesis. Once again, evolution =/= abiogenesis. Understand?
No, it's not reasonable. Because whether a supernatural power created first life is irrelevant when it comes to whether a supernatural power was involved during the process of evolution. One does not need to prove that abiogenesis is true in order to prove that the theory of evolution is true.
M/H says: Once again, evolution =/= abiogenesis. Understand?
Woody: Yes, I understood it before you said it. Yes, I know what ambiogenesis is. You have presented no new information. So is ambiogenesis a natural or supernatural process?
M/H says: No, it's not reasonable. Because whether a supernatural power created first life is irrelevant when it comes to whether a supernatural power was involved during the process of evolution. One does not need to prove that abiogenesis is true in order to prove that the theory of evolution is true.
Woody says: If you can disprove the supernatural explanation for life as we know it, what other alternative is there besides the theory of evolution and spontanious ambiogenesis? I agree that evolution would be a completely different mechanism from ambiogenesis (both proposed as natural processes), but the real point I'm making concerns a supernatural vs. a natural explantion of life. I am sorry that you read in an association between evolution and ambiogenesis -- they are both proposed as natural processes that explain life. Perhaps I should have said "To proove that the origin of life and subsequent evolution can occur without the existence of a supernatural power -- create life from inert ingredients." Of course somebody might come along and claim a supernatural power is involved in evolution, but not in the creation of life -- err fat chance!
Woody: Yes, I understood it before you said it. Yes, I know what ambiogenesis is. You have presented no new information. So is ambiogenesis a natural or supernatural process?
M/H says: No, it's not reasonable. Because whether a supernatural power created first life is irrelevant when it comes to whether a supernatural power was involved during the process of evolution. One does not need to prove that abiogenesis is true in order to prove that the theory of evolution is true.
Woody says: If you can disprove the supernatural explanation for life as we know it, what other alternative is there besides the theory of evolution and spontanious ambiogenesis? I agree that evolution would be a completely different mechanism from ambiogenesis (both proposed as natural processes), but the real point I'm making concerns a supernatural vs. a natural explantion of life. I am sorry that you read in an association between evolution and ambiogenesis -- they are both proposed as natural processes that explain life. Perhaps I should have said "To proove that the origin of life and subsequent evolution can occur without the existence of a supernatural power -- create life from inert ingredients." Of course somebody might come along and claim a supernatural power is involved in evolution, but not in the creation of life -- err fat chance!
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
There are two major explanations for this:Woody said:
1) You have been talking to people who are believers in evolution, but are untutored in it.
2) You have been equating aging with death in your conversation with them. As previously noted they are not the same.
My assessment of evolution is independent of several things, but two of them are relevant to this discussion:
1) my view on the origin of life.
2) my view on the existence of God.
On the first point I am comfortable with the notion that we shall eventually determine with fair accuracy how life began. I suspect that we shall find that life on Earth arose through pan spermia.
On the second point I am a devout agnostic.
Too repeat, because you seem to be having real difficulty grasping this, the origin of life is an event (or series of events) independent of biological evolution. God could have reached down his divine hand and created our common ancestor, then allowed his laws to work their way so that it evolved into today's biosphere. Or, God could have created the Universe, setting it in motion, then leaving it to work its way through the formation of stars and galaxies, the origin of life and the evolution to today's biosphere.
One thing I am certain of: the last part of that trinity, evolution, is a proven reality. [And it has bugger all to do with the origin of life.]
So you are running away because you are unable to answer a single one of my arguments. Although, I am really only making one point: evolution and the origin of life are two entirely separate things. Go on. Amaze me. Demonstrate that they are the same. Or just be a moral coward. I have no preference. Either way the paucity of your stance will be evident to any intelligent reader of this thread.
[If this seems rather harsh realise that I would consider it ethically wrong to tolerate public displays of persistent ignorance. Recognise the error of your thinking and you will find me an amicable debator. Otherwise expect to be skewered.]
Woody:
Apparently you didn't.
More likely a natural process.
False dilemma fallacy. And once again, abiogenesis =/= evolution. A supernatural entity can create first life, and then it can evolve via natural laws.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Is that meant to impress us? You seem unable to get anything right. All you can reasonably deduce is that I am familiar with British vernacular usage. I assure you that when I am in Texas, and the traffic is heavy, I shall seek an alternate route, rather than another way. And I shall drive on the pavement rather than walking on it. Do you realize I will even change my spelling to suit the circumstances. (I realise I shall do that.) Does this prove I am American?
As it happens I am British, though what that has to with the price of eggs I have no idea. It certainly has bugger all to do with evolution.
As it happens I am British, though what that has to with the price of eggs I have no idea. It certainly has bugger all to do with evolution.
Woody said:
AWWW... that's soo cute
Did they claim themselves as 'evolutionists' and where were these discussions conducted? Furthermore, is there a possibility that you misunderstood? After all, you have done just that on this very thread - indeed claiming that Ophiolite had made such a statement when he had not.
It appears you do not understand the 'theory' or Darwin for that matter.
S/L: Did they claim themselves as 'evolutionists'
Woody: Yes, yes, and again yes.
S/L: Furthermore, is there a possibility that you misunderstood?
Woody: no, perhaps we should conduct a poll.. I'll set one up.
S/L: It appears you do not understand the 'theory' or Darwin for that matter.
Woody: You have your opinion, but I asked you to define "fitness" and you didn't have a definition.
Woody: Yes, yes, and again yes.
S/L: Furthermore, is there a possibility that you misunderstood?
Woody: no, perhaps we should conduct a poll.. I'll set one up.
S/L: It appears you do not understand the 'theory' or Darwin for that matter.
Woody: You have your opinion, but I asked you to define "fitness" and you didn't have a definition.
Last edited: