Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community Network

Dawrinian evolution says that over time, the mutations that increases the likelyhood that an organism leave to reproduce for the next generation will eventually be preserved (selected for). This mere tautology is said to create all the marvel we see as life. Here is a ridle however, how about the mutations that increases the likelyhood of an animal of another species to leave? How will they be selected for? My short opinion is that altruism is beyond naive Dawrinism.

First, let me simplify it with an example: human beings are concerned with the welfare of dolphines. This leads to increase in chances for survival of dolphines but not necesarily the humans who thus cared for the dolphines. So how did this caring trait got selected for the dawrinian way? A 'Dawrinistic enviroment' seems to be a selfish breeding place that is at odd with the altruistic animals of our world!

As a mere tautology it just describe what obviously happens to an already existent, better gene. How that gene comes about in the first place is still a coffee time in Dawrinism. It requires wonders in every stage.

Lets see a plausible mechanism. we have different situations:

a)Animal A develops agresive behaviour towards both those that are agresive to A as well as to those altruistic to A
b)Animal B developes agresive behaviour to those agresive to itself but develops altruism to those altruistic to itself.
c)Animal C develops aggresiveness to those altruistic to itself and developes altruism to those aggresive to itself.
d)Animal D developes indiscriminate altruism.

According to Dawrinism, animal B is the only case where the selection is at least feasible but it still appears very thin to me. First it requires unbeleivable double coincidence. Every time a species develops altruism to a certain species, that other species must simultaneously develope a reciprocating altruism to the first species! Think about this having in mind that to develope the trait in the first place, it requires zillions of 'rewirings' in the brain, heart, guts etc being down all at once before the trait can function such that Dawrinian selection is possible!

Views: 581

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oh dear, dear, sounds like he suffers a rare condition, of fingers being too wide to use on buttons...Ah well, hope let's hope that he recovers shortly..... :-0

in his own awkwardly clumsy and fat and also fat fingered way

Drex lol.. are you fat.. or somthing? xD

Who me....?? No I'm nice and trim, actually...So laid back and having fun with this...But thanks for asking... ;-)

What does the inability to spell 'Darwin' got to do with understanding biology? My biology teacher pronounced 'Dow-rin', because he was not an english man.

And what is it there to understand Darwinism?? It is pretty straight foward. Do you think I can understand, phototransduction, photosynthesis, DNA expression and transcription of the salmonela flagellum, cognitive neuroscience etc etc and fail to understand Darwinism, an high school topic??

This ad-ominem attack is a rampant habit by Darwinist. Disagree with them and they just knee jerkingly say that you don't understand Darwinism. But Darwinism is a theory based on just two premises:

a)All leaving things evolved from a single cell
b)Evolution proceed by accumulation of small changes that happens during reproduction. When the changes are beneficial, the gene leaves to reproduce for the next generation. when the gene changes are harmfull, they are quickly selected against. Therefore over time, the genes that is best adobted to its enviroment become dominant in the enviroment.

So what don't I get about Darwinism??? Please point it to me!! Adalis merely read that I am questioning Darwinism, instead of addressing my specific issue she rather assume that I don't understand Darwinism!! If you and Adalis think that there is more to Darwinism than I have summarised above, then you, not me, are the ones who don't understand Darwinism.
The true challenge in Darwinism is to explain the DETAILED step by step process that the organs went through from a given stage to another (just like explaining the process of transduction I illustrated above in detailed as opposed to the summarising hand waving). In each of the supposedly tiny intermidiate change, a Darwinist MUST show that the change is beneficial enough to make the leaving organism dorminant in the enviroment. So far, this is unanswered question in Darwinism. The dare 'go ask any question to Darwinist and get answeres' is a serious naivety! It shows that the person TRIVIALIZES the complexity in leaving things and doesn't understand what constitute a biological explanation (like I have illustrated it in phototransduction above). He probably have in mind explaing a mouse trap etc!!
Let me illustrate with an example:
The question is what is the slightest improvement in the retina of the chicken's eye that will enable it to escape an eagle better than the other chicken?

First, remember the complexity neaded to create a SINGLE phototransduction process like I have illustrated above (Darwin did not understand this). Then a single such process will add no benefit to the chicken because it will add only a single pixel to the retina. And cause of the limmitations of using lenses for imaging, many pixels are necesary to benefit the chicken. The addition of pixels to the retina without the addition of optic nerves to each of the rodes will serve no purpose to dawrinian selection. The addition of optic nerves without the rewiring of the visual cortex in the brain will serve no purpose for Darwinian selection. Now the necesary addition is now 100000000 or so times more complex than the whole computer!
"Why are you wasting your time telling me all this bull? You should be approaching scientist at Berkeley sit but of course"

Yes I won't because the bozos in Berkeley donnot understand ALTRUISM and so it follows logically that they cannot explain to me its origin! The members of this site have done better job in educating me on things modern science could not explain to me and I am farmiliar with the cutting edge of science.

So I posted the question in THIS SITE to be answered to be answered in this site because I know it is not answerable by modern science because they donnot factor in consciousness in their understanding of the universe. You come and tell me where to pose my questions??

You donnot understand altruism, otherwise you yourself would explain it to me here. Strange enough even though you don't understand it, you presume that there is an answer to its origin in Berkeley!! Thats sounds like the christian who keep saying 'answere is in the bible' even if he has never read the bible!! Sure, this is not even recommendable thing in science. YOU MUST BE SKEPTICAL TO SCIENCE UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT 100%. True scientists are skeptical about evolution theory like they are to any other theory.

But there you are, you know not that scientists, like any other group of people on earth are ameanable to wishfull thinking, corruption, confirmational bias etc. If our science is corrupt, as it most likely is, with your attitude of blind bowing to authority, we will all fall to the pit! A thing is not true because someone in Berkeley said so. Your attitude is like that of telling me to go pouse questions about God to the priests in the catholic church there, what naive!! What can they do to what treathens their religion except to sweep it under the carpert??? And if you agree that a human being can be blinded by faith, like in a church, what makes you think that suddenly a group of people branded 'scientists' are surprisingly immune from this trait that obviously bedevils the whole humanity?
"Science is about collecting data, falsifying hypotheses, and retaining those that agree with experiments and evidence"

What naive!!

That is an IDEAL SCIENCE, which does not exist. The statement is just like saying:

"perliament is about listening to people's complains, discussions and debates, creating and amending laws, controlling government's expenditure etc, all for the benefits of the people who elected the perliament"

True, but naive!! Only a child entertains the possibility that there is such a body that works for the benefit of people who elected them. A grown up knows that anything done by human being falls short of being ideal. This includes science. And science is even worse.

In science, debates are rarely won with evidence and experiments as demanded by the scientific method. Somewhere, we do these unethical activities:

b)Award certificates and noble prizes (prestige)
c)Persuade and convert

So there you are. They voted in copenhagen that light is both a particle and a wave!!! Then they teach that this is a discovery!!!!!

What many similarly indoctrinated bozos want it to be true=reality??? How about the vote of mother nature?
So what about the stupid bones of Darwin, arranged in 'ascending' order by a human being. Does it prove Darwinism? Lol! Without the prio-mesmerism of Darwin, the bones cannot prove anything. It only prove Darwinism when viewed under the sunglasses of Darwin. To a sane person, these are just a collection of dry bones. Everything else is an OPINION!!

It has been the nature of 20th centuary science to equate interlectual reasoning and inferrances with facts!!!! This is how they 'prove' that you are a bedbug hopelessly crawling in a curved space and that you kill a cat by merely looking at it!!

Interlectual reasoning from bones, or any other data for that matter, is called OPINION ABOUT THE BONES! With reasoning, we can reason anything we want from the bones, depending on how creative we are, from an alien civilization to an extinct species that is not necesarily the ancestor of the modern man to a merely ubnormal ape or human.

How can gazing at a mere bone prove that it evolved to the modern man? I mean reasoning somewhere begs the question!!! It is just like staring at a clunker with no engine and trying to reason if it were a volkswagen, isuzu or toyota. Pointless!! All the relevant facts are missing: how complicated was the engine? Even if we say that isuzu evolved to toyota, is toyota necesarily any more inginious than isuzu? Nope! And this is where Darwin dies a sudden death as I will next illustrate.

Lets grant Darwin that human somehow evolved from h***-erectus. We want to see how many miles Darwin is from reality. The question is, was the h***-erectus any lesser ingenious than a man? Nope!

Darwin's reasoning confused variety complexity and/or size with ingenuity. So he hoped that if he claim that all leaving things came from single cell, we can figure out how ingenuity came about from non ingenious origin. What a fallacy! We now understand that a single cell is both more complex and ingenious than the entire collection of cells if each cells is taken as black boxes the way Darwin took them!! Therefore figuring out how say an heart came from a single cell does not show us how the clever looking heart came about from a non clever looking beginning because more cleverness is already inherent in a single cell! The complexity in leaving things is more like an HOLOGRAM than a car.

When you ask a Darwinist where the bacteria flagellum came from, he tells you from a type 3 secreation system. When you ask him where the type 3 secreation system came from, he says from the bacteria flagellum. Good! What have we learnt? Only that after centuaries, darwinists have painted themselves to the corner!

It is not a surprise because the bacteria flagellum is as complex as the type 3 secreation system.
The cell completely robe Darwin his fallacious habit of pointing to a 'lesser complex' organism as the origin of a 'more complex' organism.

RAMA: Where did the human heart came from
BERKELEY: The fish's heart is lesser complex.

So he insinuates that some orgarnisms are more evolved than others. What a fallacy! If you were given the heart of a fish, it won't function and if you take the heart of a man and transplant it to fish, it won't function! A 'Darwinian fish' can as well amuse himself that the fish's heart came from that of man when other parts went vestigial. It is equaly difficult to go from man to fish IF THE FISH MUST FUNCTION IN ITS ENVIROMENT. The 'arrow' of Darwin that points from fish to man is purely subjective and superficial! There is no such a comparison between the heart of fish and that of man to gauge which is better because both are 100% fitted to their functions.
But the worse part is SUPERFICIALITY. To Darwin, cell is least complex. What a fallacy!! Confusing SMALLNESS with COMPLEXITY then with INGENUITY. We know that the microchip that can fit to the mouth of an insect is more complex than its predecessor that was built in to a whole city in 1930s!!

Then less complexity does not equal to less ingenuity. While a library can be 10000 times more complex than a guitar, a guitar still shows ingenuity that cannot even elude a child.



© 2019  

About Cookies | Read Community Guidelines | Contact Us | Community Sponsorship

  Powered by

   |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service