Well established theories on patterns in evolution might be wrong

September 28, 2018, Uppsala University
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

How do the large-scale patterns observed in evolution arise? A new paper in the journal Evolution by researchers at Uppsala University and University of Leeds argues that many of them are a type of statistical artefact caused by our unavoidably recent viewpoint looking back into the past. As a result, it might not be possible to draw any conclusions about what caused the enormous changes in diversity observed over time.

The of life over time shows some striking patterns. For example, the animals appear in the about 550 million years ago, in an enormous burst of diversification called the Cambrian Explosion. Many groups of organisms appear to originate like this, but later on in their evolutionary history, their rates of diversification and morphological change seem to slow down. These sorts of patterns can be seen both in the fossil record, and also in reconstructions of past diversity based on the relationships between living organisms, and they have given rise to a great deal of debate.

Do organisms have more evolutionary flexibility when they first evolve? Or do ecosystems get "filled up" as more species evolve, giving fewer opportunities for further diversification later on? In their new paper, Graham Budd and Richard Mann make the provocative argument that these patterns may be largely illusory, and that we would still expect to see them even if rates of evolutionary change stay the same on average through time.

Biologists and palaeontologists use statistical models called "birth-death models" to study how random events of speciation and extinction give rise to patterns of diversity. Just as a dice rolled five times can produce five sixes or none, the outcomes of these random models are variable. These statistical fluctuations are particularly important at the origin of a , when there are only a few species. It turns out that the only groups that survive this early period are those that happen to diversify quickly—all the others go extinct. As is it exactly those groups that become the large, successful groups living today, and that fill most of the fossil record, it follows that they are likely to show this rapid of diversification at their origin—but only because they are a biased subset of all groups. Later in their history, when such groups are diverse, statistical fluctuations have much less effect, and therefore their rate of evolution appears to slow down to the background average.

As a result, the patterns revealed by analyzing such groups are not general features of evolution as a whole, but rather represent a remarkable bias that emerges by studying only groups already known to be successful. This bias, called "the push of the past," has been known theoretically for about 25 years, but it has been almost completely ignored, probably because it was assumed to be negligible in size. However, Budd and Mann show that the effect is very large, and can, in fact, account for much of the variation observed in past diversity, especially when combined with the effects of the great "mass extinctions" such as the one that killed off the dinosaurs some 66 million years ago. Because the resulting patterns are an inevitable feature of the sorts of groups available for study, Budd and Mann argue, it follows that we cannot perceive any particular cause of them—they simply arise from statistical fluctuation.

The push of the past is an example of a much more general type of pattern called "survivorship bias," which can be seen in many other areas of life, for example, in business start-ups, finance and the study of history. In all these cases, failure to recognize the bias can lead to highly misleading conclusions. Budd and Mann argue that the history of life itself is not immune to such effects, and that many traditional explanations for why diversity changes through may need to be reconsidered—a viewpoint that is bound to prove controversial.

Explore further: Missing bones and our understanding of ancient biodiversity

More information: Graham E. Budd et al, History is written by the victors: The effect of the push of the past on the fossil record, Evolution (2018). DOI: 10.1111/evo.13593

Related Stories

'We're sleepwalking into a mass extinction' say scientists

March 21, 2018

Species that live in symbiosis with others, which often occur in the most delicately balanced and threatened marine ecosystems such as coral reefs, are the slowest to recover their diversity if damaged, according to a team ...

Recommended for you

Researchers capture 'key' to deadly malaria infection

December 13, 2018

An international team led by Institute researchers has visualised the unique molecular 'key' used by the world's deadliest malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum, to enter and infect human blood cells.

115 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SCVGoodToGo
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2018
Based on the article title alone, it won't be long before the creationists begin spouting absolute twaddle without reading the article.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Sep 28, 2018
As a Creationist myself (not to be confused with religionists) I have to agree with the article that there is much "bias" going around wrt the developments due to Evolution. But the processes of evolving is not a statistical, and therefore symmetrical program by which all life forms must adhere to in order that researchers could categorise statistically exactly how the processes of evolution had affected the life forms of each era.

Life does not follow symmetry, just as long straight lines are very rarely found in Nature.

As Life in all of its forms is a MECHANICAL performance of functionality, it would be impossible to expect that evolution is missing from Nature and the Natural Order.
Life is programmable once it has already existed, through its various mechanisms.

All that Evolution is, is the Deprogramming and Reprogramming of the Asymmetry of the Program of Life.
Dug
1 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2018
"therefore their rate of evolution appears to slow down to the background average."

Not really, and that is where the entire theory falls apart. The rate of evolution slows with the reduction in specific selection pressures. Those reduced selection pressures are inherent for any large well adapted population. Humans are a classic example. So, were carrier pigeons. There's a less there, but I give up on my species figuring it out.
Bart_A
1.9 / 5 (17) Sep 28, 2018
Well, there is nothing "well established" about evolution. It is a very recent speculation about the possible history of life on earth. None of it is proven in any way, and remains just a theory at best. It consumes billions of dollars a year in research money that could spent much better elsewhere, as this theory is leading us nowhere.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2018
Well, there is nothing "well established" about evolution
Well, one thing we do know about evolution is that it doesnt promise to give us everything we ever wanted in return for being ignorant bigots.

And then there's all that magnificent architecture... how could creationism be wrong? So much at stake-
Anonym334113
4 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2018
Proofreading matters. You say, "As is it exactly those groups that become the large, successful groups living today,..." Clearly, this should be "As it is..." etc. Clear communication depends on leading the reader smoothly through a progression of ideas that link logically. When you mess up the order of words or otherwise lose continuity, you confuse the readers and may also lose them.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
Well, there is nothing "well established" about evolution. It is a very recent speculation about the possible history of life on earth. None of it is proven in any way, and remains just a theory at best. It consumes billions of dollars a year in research money that could spent much better elsewhere, as this theory is leading us nowhere.
says Bart_A

Evolution hadn't been hypothesised on until more recently within the last few hundred years. Evolution is just another word/definition for "Change(s)". Those changes may be beneficial or not, depending on whether the changes are equal to what the conditions have become. Man has changed very little because of man's ability to adapt to new conditions. I believe that you are already aware as to who it was who gave man that ability, yes?
Evolution is good for some species/genus and bad for others. Some would say that Nature is cruel, but I say that Nature is merely indifferent but desires perfect equilibrium.
dudester
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2018
"Just as a dice rolled five times can produce five sixes or none..."

Dice is plural, the singular is die, as in "The die is cast."
TeeSquared
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2018
Based on the article title alone, it won't be long before the creationists begin spouting absolute twaddle without reading the article.


I for one do read the article before I spout twaddle.

Either we are created or we are a product of random chance over time.

If created; we have a purpose, a destiny, an accounting of what we have done.
If by chance; there is no purpose, nothing happens, doesn't make a difference.

As a result, it might not be possible to draw any conclusions about what caused the enormous changes in diversity observed over time.


Possible because there really are no enormous changes over time.
rrwillsj
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
TS, those are a great pair of blinders you are wearing.
Which racehorse did you swipe them off of? Don't let the jockey catch you. They are mean little bastards!

Now all you stuporstitious dolts need to decide? How to resolve the contradiction between divinely mandated "Free Will" and theologically constrained
"... a purpose, a destiny ...".

Oh yeah. Religions enforce the gibberish by burning people at the stale or killing them with IEDs. Now there's an argument difficult to refute!

If you lack the intellectual capacity to create/invent/adapt a purpose, a destiny from your own capabilities?

Well, the difference between stupid and ignorant is? The ignorant can learn, can be educated. Stupid is forever.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2018
Based on the article title alone, it won't be long before the creationists begin spouting absolute twaddle without reading the article.


I for one do read the article before I spout twaddle.

Either we are created or we are a product of random chance over time.

If created; we have a purpose, a destiny, an accounting of what we have done.
If by chance; there is no purpose, nothing happens, doesn't make a difference.

As a result, it might not be possible to draw any conclusions about what caused the enormous changes in diversity observed over time.


Possible because there really are no enormous changes over time.
says Tee S

I think that you really meant that you read the article so that you DON'T spout twaddle.

Humans were created. Animals, including the apes were not. There are lots of evidence for this, but you will have to do some searching on the internet and in books for that evidence. And I don't mean in religious websites.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
If created; we have a purpose, a destiny, an accounting of what we have done
We may well be created but that does not automatically convey any of those things.

We do know that we werent created by the god of abraham. That god wrote a book about people we know never existed and events we know never happened.

And in that book the god of abraham also claimed to be perfect; incapable of error. Perfection is integral to his existence.

So either the god of abraham is incompetent or hes a liar; ie imperfect, ie non-existent. And you certainly cant trust the explanations of creation, nor can you trust the promise to grant all your wishes in return for belief and service.

So youre going to have to look for your creator and your salvation elsewhere.
TeeSquared
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 29, 2018
rrwillsj:

When a person reverts to the use of insults I respectfully decline to participate in a dialogue.

----------------------------------

Surveillance_Egg_Unit:

Humans were created. Animals, including the apes were not.


I am curious as to your reasons for saying this.

---------------------------

TheGhostofOtto1923:

We do know that we werent created by the god of abraham. That god wrote a book about people we know never existed and events we know never happened.


What we do know is that the bible has proven to be correct in the information it gives regarding archaeology, geography, science, history.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
2.9 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
Interesting work - I haven't had time to read the paper - from my alma mater, no less!

As for the anti-science comments here, I note that the article tests evolution further, which is why you irrationally respond to being ever more marginalized. But this is really simple for everyone else:
- Evolution is well established [ https://en.wikipe...volution ]; in fact the best tested science we have due to its complexity and many data to test.
- Evolution is an observed process of change in population genomes over generations, not simply change, and neither random nor always non-random selective) [ibid].
- Creationism has nothing to do with science. It is a religion , c.f US court assessments.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2018


Surveillance_Egg_Unit:

Humans were created. Animals, including the apes were not.


I am curious as to your reasons for saying this. says Tee S

OK Let me preface this by informing you that Satan/Lucifer/the Devil is, and has been, using the internet. He was freed after being locked up on another planet and has returned to Earth to do more evil dirty work and to see to it that mankind is destroyed.

Isn't that right, SpookyOtto?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018

- Creationism has nothing to do with science. It is a religion , c.f US court assessments.

says t b g larsson

Wrong. Creationism is from a time that was long before the practice of religions began amongst human societies. Religions are all manmade and are always subject to the whims and desires of those leaders of each religion; and each religion can be thwarted and subverted by political ideologies to corrupt the minds and souls of the faithful. The worship and belief in the Creator is not a religion and never was.
Creationism is very much tied irreversibly to science, where there would have been no science whatsoever without the Creator.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 29, 2018

- Creationism has nothing to do with science. It is a religion , c.f US court assessments.

says t b g larsson

Wrong. Creationism is from a time that was long before the practice of religions began amongst human societies. Religions are all manmade and are always subject to the whims and desires of those leaders of each religion; and each religion can be thwarted and subverted by political ideologies to corrupt the minds and souls of the faithful. The worship and belief in the Creator is not a religion and never was.
Creationism is very much tied irreversibly to science, where there would have been no science whatsoever without the Creator.


What a load of crap.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2018

- Creationism has nothing to do with science. It is a religion , c.f US court assessments.

says t b g larsson

Wrong. Creationism is from a time that was long before the practice of religions began amongst human societies. Religions are all manmade and are always subject to the whims and desires of those leaders of each religion; and each religion can be thwarted and subverted by political ideologies to corrupt the minds and souls of the faithful. The worship and belief in the Creator is not a religion and never was.
Creationism is very much tied irreversibly to science, where there would have been no science whatsoever without the Creator.


What a load of crap.


And your evidence is....?
TeeSquared
2 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
torbjorn_b_g_larsson:

Evolution is an observed process of change in population genomes over generations,


Micro or macro evolution?

----------------------------

Surveillance_Egg_Unit:

OK Let me preface this by informing you that Satan/Lucifer/the Devil is, and has been, using the internet. He was freed after being locked up on another planet and has returned to Earth to do more evil dirty work and to see to it that mankind is destroyed.


Other than being locked up on another planet, you got it pretty close. The evidence of Satan's influence is clearly evidenced by the increasing sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, drugs, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, slander, pride, and foolishness.

-------------------------------

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2018
And your evidence is....?


You've not got the hang of this science lark, have you? You are the one making idiotic claims - you are the one that needs evidence, boy. Until then, it is nothing more than the rantings of a delusional loon on a comments section. And that ain't science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018


Surveillance_Egg_Unit:

OK Let me preface this by informing you that Satan/Lucifer/the Devil is, and has been, using the internet. He was freed after being locked up on another planet and has returned to Earth to do more evil dirty work and to see to it that mankind is destroyed.


Other than being locked up on another planet, you got it pretty close. The evidence of Satan's influence is clearly evidenced by the increasing sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, drugs, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, slander, pride, and foolishness.

-------------------------------

says Tee S

1,000 years, as it says in the NT. He has been allowed to go free - for a time. The Catholic Church is in complete disarray; other denominations have accepted homosexual clergy to preach to congregations; Lucifer is celebrating.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
And your evidence is....?


You've not got the hang of this science lark, have you? You are the one making idiotic claims - you are the one that needs evidence, boy. Until then, it is nothing more than the rantings of a delusional loon on a comments section. And that ain't science.
says jones

And you still haven't given me any evidence that my claims are wrong. Read my comment again and think of how you will refute what I've said regarding Creationism.

Obviously you can't do it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
-contd-
@Tee S
Israel has become a secular State while still claiming to be God's people. Tel Aviv is a hotbed of homosexuality (which may be one of the reasons that Pres. Trump was happy to move the Consulate to Jerusalem).
The religion of peace - Islam is bent on the destruction of Israel and killing all Christians and Jews.
While in Europe and UK they are well on their way to losing their own cultures and being forced o accept a foreign religion and ideology.
In the US, Satan is turning heads and hearts to his way, and Americans are doing it willingly.
And Satan's hatred for humanity grows, almost as much as his jealousy of God the Creator.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
WRT Evolution, all animals and plants evolve according to the requirements of each genus/species. Evolution has been observed to happen in real time, where a members of a genus is taken to an island where they flourish and have no enemies on the island. They become lax and lose their fear after a few generations on the island. Then when they are brought back to the mainland, they still have no fear of predators and are quickly decimated. Losing their fear was one way that they had evolved - at their own peril
TeeSquared
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2018
Surveillance_Egg_Unit:

1,000 years, as it says in the NT. He has been allowed to go free - for a time. The Catholic Church is in complete disarray; other denominations have accepted homosexual clergy to preach to congregations; Lucifer is celebrating.


And the world is getting worse. It is the wickedness of mankind and the rebellion against God. The teaching of evolution is one of the greatest misconceptions because it attempts to exclude God. And when God is left out, anything is then permissible and acceptable.

---------------------------------

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
I agree that it's getting worse. But it's all about choices and free will. Think of it as the Final Exams before test scores come back and, depending on your test scores, you are able to graduate to a higher level.
But the Creator knew that His creation wasn't perfect. But that's the beauty of it, you see. With the freedom to make choices, the rewards really mean something when all the choices are weighed and determined to have been the right or the wrong choices. It's like if you come to a fork in the road - which road do you take, right or left. A large percentage of human population prefer the wrong choice because that's who they are.
Anyway, this forum is the wrong one to talk of such things. Perhaps another time, another forum.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 30, 2018
And your evidence is....?


You've not got the hang of this science lark, have you? You are the one making idiotic claims - you are the one that needs evidence, boy. Until then, it is nothing more than the rantings of a delusional loon on a comments section. And that ain't science.
says jones

And you still haven't given me any evidence that my claims are wrong. Read my comment again and think of how you will refute what I've said regarding Creationism.

Obviously you can't do it.


I don't need to do it, you idiot. You are the one making evidence-free, stupid claims. The onus is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it. That is how science works. Not that you'd know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
TheGhostofOtto1923:

We do know that we werent created by the god of abraham. That god wrote a book about people we know never existed and events we know never happened.

What we do know is that the bible has proven to be correct in the information it gives regarding archaeology, geography, science, history
Sorry I dont interact with idiot rerun trolls. Except to make them look like the the idiots they are.

Say, see any drunken glassy-headed 900ft tall martians lately?

You retard.
Shootist
3 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2018
multi-variant.

The cause are causes.
IwinUlose
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
If created; we have a purpose, a destiny, an accounting of what we have done.
If by chance; there is no purpose, nothing happens, doesn't make a difference.


What a myopic view of life and the universe. This is the worst aspect of zealots; if they lose their god everything is pointless. Let's hope those so faithful never lose that faith or we all pay for it :/.

Edit - well maybe not the worst aspect, but still, really awful.
IwinUlose
4 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2018
If created; we have a purpose, a destiny, an accounting of what we have done.
If by chance *it's up to us: to find a purpose, create a destiny, and account for what we have done.*
TeeSquared
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
IwinUlose:

if they lose their god everything is pointless


I totally agree.

If evolution is true:
- then this universe will reach a 'heat death' which will be devoid of any life. That includes us.
- then what we do now makes absolutely no difference to the final outcome.
- our energy is spent on momentary pleasures and struggling to stay alive until the next meal.
- death is nothing to be contemplated or feared. It's just nature's way of eliminating weaker people to make room for stronger. Yet, we feel sorrow when loved ones die. The death of innocent children is something that is wrong. Diseases, such as cancer, is something to be fought against even though evolution says that's just another way to cull the population. Stronger people who take advantage of weaker should be applauded for doing their job.

But we know something is wrong in this world. If we are a product of evolution then we should just follow nature. But we don't. Because we're not.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 30, 2018
But we know something is wrong in this world. If we are a product of evolution then we should just follow nature. But we don't. Because we're not.


Utter nonsense. In what way is anarchy, selfishness, violence, anti-social behaviour, etc, in any way evolutionary beneficial? You just don't understand the subject. Which is why you believe the nonsense you do. Even chimps don't behave that way. There are checks and balances.
Then again, I've always believed chimps are more intelligent than creationists. Nobody has proved me wrong, yet.

Phyllis Harmonic
4.3 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
But we know something is wrong in this world. If we are a product of evolution then we should just follow nature. But we don't. Because we're not.


What is "wrong" in the world is a matter of perspective. You hold some ideal of "rightness" about the world- your world. Your world is not my world. Our social morals are founded in the benefits conferred by certain behaviors, not through any supernatural agency.

All of your egocentric desperation to have your life mean something within the context of the universe does not change the fact that you are a product of environmental selection, and nothing more.

It's what we make of our lives that matters, not what the universe makes of them for us.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
And your evidence is....?


You've not got the hang of this science lark, have you? You are the one making idiotic claims - you are the one that needs evidence, boy. Until then, it is nothing more than the rantings of a delusional loon on a comments section. And that ain't science.
says jones

And you still haven't given me any evidence that my claims are wrong. Read my comment again and think of how you will refute what I've said regarding Creationism.

Obviously you can't do it.


I don't need to do it, you idiot. You are the one making evidence-free, stupid claims. The onus is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it. That is how science works. Not that you'd know.

says jones

You THINK that you don't need to provide evidence. But it is YOU who made the accusation. So prove it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
But we know something is wrong in this world. If we are a product of evolution then we should just follow nature. But we don't. Because we're not.


Utter nonsense. In what way is anarchy, selfishness, violence, anti-social behaviour, etc, in any way evolutionary beneficial? You just don't understand the subject. Which is why you believe the nonsense you do. Even chimps don't behave that way. There are checks and balances.
Then again, I've always believed chimps are more intelligent than creationists. Nobody has proved me wrong, yet.

says jones

Those are all behaviours that are learnt at some point in life. But selfishness is a natural, congenital behaviour that is built-in, in both humans and animals for the purpose and benefit of survival. And selfishness can be tempered with the learned ability to be charitable. American children are taught by Socialist educators that selfishness is evil and to share everything they have. That is to prepare them
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
-contd-
That is to prepare them for a future totalitarian government, where everyone will be equally poor and nobody will have more than anybody else - except for their political leaders, of course.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
In fact, Anarchy, anti-social behaviour, and violence are some of the things that are encouraged in the American population now. Violence against law and order, and violence against those with whom one disagrees - all these have been taught to schoolchildren for generations - in as unobtrusive and subtle ways to prevent parents from finding out that their children are being taught to be violent and antisocial Anarchists.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
But we know something is wrong in this world. If we are a product of evolution then we should just follow nature. But we don't. Because we're not.


What is "wrong" in the world is a matter of perspective. You hold some ideal of "rightness" about the world- your world. Your world is not my world. Our social morals are founded in the benefits conferred by certain behaviors, not through any supernatural agency.

All of your egocentric desperation to have your life mean something within the context of the universe does not change the fact that you are a product of environmental selection, and nothing more.

It's what we make of our lives that matters, not what the universe makes of them for us.

says PhyllisH

The Universe evolves, and everything in it also evolves. It is a mechanical process and it will continue AS THE NEED ARISES. Humans evolve but very little, in comparison with all other animals. The basic reason is that man was a created being.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2018
What is "wrong" in the world is a matter of perspective. You hold some ideal of "rightness" about the world- your world. Your world is not my world. Our social morals are founded in the benefits conferred by certain behaviors, not through any supernatural agency.
I'll take real evidence over your "social morals" any time at all. The Babble about the magic daddy in the sky by the drunken stone age sheep herders is not "evidence" and your attempt to claim it is shows your lack of critical thought.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
What is "wrong" in the world is a matter of perspective. You hold some ideal of "rightness" about the world- your world. Your world is not my world. Our social morals are founded in the benefits conferred by certain behaviors, not through any supernatural agency.
I'll take real evidence over your "social morals" any time at all. The Babble about the magic daddy in the sky by the drunken stone age sheep herders is not "evidence" and your attempt to claim it is shows your lack of critical thought.
says Da

You are right that PhyllisH should not attempt to claim a "magic daddy in the sky" without any evidence. She definitely lacks critical thought.
IwinUlose
3.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2018
I'll take real evidence over your "social morals" any time at all. The Babble about the magic daddy in the sky by the drunken stone age sheep herders is not "evidence" and your attempt to claim it is shows your lack of critical thought.

@Da Schneib - you might read Phyllis Harmonic's reply again for context; I don't think that poster subscribes to that book.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
@IloseUwin

Oh, do hush.
LOL
malapropism
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2018
@SEU
OK Let me preface this by informing you that Satan/Lucifer/the Devil is, and has been, using the internet. He was freed after being locked up on another planet and has returned to Earth to do more evil dirty work and to see to it that mankind is destroyed.

I'm curious (dogma occasionally makes me wonder what drives people to believe it) - do you actually, firmly believe this?

If your answer is truthfully "yes" and you are not dissembling in some way to inflame the posts here for your amusement, may I ask why you believe this, and rationale behind the statement?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 30, 2018
If I recollect from reading hundreds of past physorg posts, you are one of those sock puppets that SpookyOtto uses as a disguise when he doesn't want to use his primary user name - to pretend that he is nowhere in sight. Yes or No?

Inflaming the posts, as you put it, is not why I comment in this site.

As you have already been proven to be a god basher, I don't believe that I owe you an explanation. Thanks for asking.
malapropism
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2018
@SEU
I'm unsure if you are replying to me or not since you don't specify but if you are - nope, I am not anyone's "sock puppet" and nor do I have any other accounts on PhysOrg.

Yes, I am an atheist but it was a genuine question - I was interested to find out why you thought that. Never mind, I guess you are closed to any discussion on it.

PS.
You might be interested - or perhaps not since you seem dogmatically opposed to a reasoned discussion - to know that a very good friend of mine is CEO (or GM, or whatever his title is - head of, anyway) a national fundamentalist evangelical and creationist Christian organisation where I live. This extreme dichotomy in our views does not preclude us being friends, and nor does it preclude us have interesting conversations about religion and/or the nature of life.
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2018
Based on the article title alone, it won't be long before the creationists begin spouting absolute twaddle without reading the article.


*sigh*

To discuss the article itself, I wouldn't be surprised if we found an observer bias in our attempts to chart long-term trends in evolutionary biology - especially since we don't have anywhere near a complete dataset. I've often wondered, for example, whether the Cambrian explosion was due more to the amount of data available to use from that time period rather than an actual evolutionary explosion.

I think it's a truism, however, that climatic stability will lead to slower evolutionary changes for obvious reasons - and the climate has been historically stable for a while now. At least until humans came along and f'ed it up.

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
...
But the Creator knew that His creation wasn't perfect. But that's the beauty of it, you see. With the freedom to make choices, the rewards really mean something when all the choices are weighed and determined to have been the right or the wrong choices.

The ugliness of that metaphor, is that our decision making process is a result of our trained/learned perceptions.
like if you come to a fork in the road - which road do you take, right or left. A large percentage of human population prefer the wrong choice because that's who they are.

Right or wrong being a trained perception based on your information at hand ...
Maybe the fork you take is a result of your own genetic chiral preferences...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2018
As I have mentioned many a time, Creationists are not religionists. As someone in physorg has said, (paraphrasing) religions were started and believed by "stone age sheepherders". As you have already admitted to being an atheist, I don't see the point in explaining that which you are very unlikely to accept anyway. But that is quite alright, as everyone, every human is given the chance to make their own choices and follow their path to wherever it leads.

Fundamentalist evangelicals are not Creationists. They adhere to religion. Therefore, they are not far removed from the "stone age sheepherders" mentioned above.
While I am clearly not denigrating "religionists", I/we are opposed to being made a part of such a culture by those who cannot tell the difference.
leetennant
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
SEG - you are making no sense. Who cares if you adhere to a religion or not? You're still wrong about something. So... what? You want credit because you're wrong about it for a different reason?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2018
Based on the article title alone, it won't be long before the creationists begin spouting absolute twaddle without reading the article.


*sigh*

To discuss the article itself, I wouldn't be surprised if we found an observer bias in our attempts to chart long-term trends in evolutionary biology - especially since we don't have anywhere near a complete dataset. I've often wondered, for example, whether the Cambrian explosion was due more to the amount of data available to use from that time period rather than an actual evolutionary explosion.

I think it's a truism, however, that climatic stability will lead to slower evolutionary changes for obvious reasons - and the climate has been historically stable for a while now. At least until humans came along and f'ed it up.

says lee

"At least until humans came along and (=)."
But lee - without humanity, you wouldn't even be a mote - well, perhaps a speck of dust floating in the CMB is all you would be.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2018
SEG - you are making no sense. Who cares if you adhere to a religion or not? You're still wrong about something. So... what? You want credit because you're wrong about it for a different reason?
says lee

As I don't adhere to any religion, I don't understand what you mean, unless you are referring to the CEO friend mentioned above.
I don't regard myself or my Creationist community as "wrong". If there were any chance that we could be "wrong", we would have remediated our stance early on. But we are not wrong - and you are entitled to your own opinions. Just don't try to force it on us.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
...
But the Creator knew that His creation wasn't perfect. But that's the beauty of it, you see. With the freedom to make choices, the rewards really mean something when all the choices are weighed and determined to have been the right or the wrong choices.

The ugliness of that metaphor, is that our decision making process is a result of our trained/learned perceptions.
like if you come to a fork in the road - which road do you take, right or left. A large percentage of human population prefer the wrong choice because that's who they are.

Right or wrong being a trained perception based on your information at hand ...
Maybe the fork you take is a result of your own genetic chiral preferences...
says WhydG

"The ugliness of that metaphor"? Well, of course it is your training and learned perceptions that make the person you are - YOU. Decisions/choices are a part of you and you are free to make them. Only the State would have the power to remove them.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
Man has evolved only very slightly in a physical sense. But mentally - that's quite different. And they have evolved mainly due to the imagination that lives within the human brain. Without it, man would be just another primate relative living in trees. But man "dares" to do the things that animals wouldn't even think to do. And a part of this daring, is choice. Choice to learn how to make fire and the gathering of wood. Chimps and gorillas are very far behind even though man shares DNA with them.
Man was created while other primates were not. It is amazing to me and my community that so many humans prefer to be identified solely with chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos.
And there is something that those primates have, that man doesn't have, and that is because those primates were NOT created.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2018
The ugliness of that metaphor
Religions abhor choice. So much so that they created satan. Without satan, believers theoretically would have no choice.

So it's either the churches way or its evil.

Satan the enlightener, the elucidater, the originator of doubt and skepticism... of critical thinking, of science.

We can see what the true evil is here.

"5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do." Jas1

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." Luther
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
No. Satan/Lucifer was created by God along with many other Angels. And, after a time, Satan/Lucifer thought that he was God's equal and sought to learn all of the secrets that God had never told His Angels. And to this day, and evermore, Satan/Lucifer who was diminished in status as the first of God's sons and forced out of the Heavenly places where the Holy Angels are allowed to tread, is going about the Earth and its environs - plotting wickedness and false accusations while causing havoc, wars and death to the humans whose ancestors were created beings.

This is the role that Satan/Lucifer plays amongst mankind - to bring about the downfall and destruction of man through the bad choices that men make, as well as the plague of Satan's demons who infect the minds of men and women, in the service of their leader, Satan/Lucifer.
These are facts - and theghostofotto1923 will use scripture to show that religions are false.
Religion is manmade and is often faulty.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
-continued-
It is the manmade religions that were thought to qualify mankind for their immortal Soul's attainment of the Heavenly places where the Holy Angels have exclusive access - and where Satan/Lucifer hasn't the right or the power to invade, along with his demons. Satan/Lucifer had been, and still is, shut out. Any attempt to invade those Holy Places will result in War between the Holy Ones and the evil and wicked host that is an insidious element of what mankind is forced to contend with. The War will begin at the appointed hour upon the right conditions.

The fact that certain religions have rejected the realities of Evolution is yet another aspect of mankind's refusal to understand that the flesh of mankind is, and has always been, subject to the mechanisms of the Earthly processes of Change. The only difference is that man has changed very little since his creation, although able to observe changes in animals and plants.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
^^^^^^^WTF is this sh!t doing on a science site?

No. Satan/Lucifer was created by God


Wrong. No such entity as God, nor Satan. It is a fairy tale. Just like Jack and the Beanstalk. Except less believable.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
The ugliness of that metaphor
Religions abhor choice. So much so that they created satan. Without satan, believers theoretically would have no choice.

So it's either the churches way or its evil.

Satan the enlightener, the elucidater, the originator of doubt and skepticism... of critical thinking, of science.

We can see what the true evil is here.
says SpookyOtto

No. Once again - Satan/Lucifer was once an Angel of God and First Son until he was cast out of the Heavens for his wicked ways. Religions were only invented long after the creation of man.

Satan/Lucifer was never an "enlightener" or an "elucidator", nor was he the originator of science and critical thinking. Satan/Lucifer has chosen to prevent 'critical thinking' only to make fools of mankind.
And, Satan/Lucifer is VERY interested in Science, following the idea that, perhaps it is mankind who will bring the answers to Satan/Lucifer wrt the CREATION of Mass from Energy.
Only God knows the secret.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
^^^^^^^WTF is this sh!t doing on a science site?

No. Satan/Lucifer was created by God


Wrong. No such entity as God, nor Satan. It is a fairy tale. Just like Jack and the Beanstalk. Except less believable.
says jones

And your evidence for that is...........?

Come on, jonesdumb - do show a little spine. You have made yet another accusation. So if you KNOW these things as fact - give us your references so that we may examine them. Yes?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
And, Satan/Lucifer is VERY interested in Science, following the idea that, perhaps it is mankind who will bring the answers to Satan/Lucifer wrt the CREATION of Mass from Energy.
Only God knows the secret.


Well, strike me down, and call me God! Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!
"It was written, in the beginning that E = mc^2. And then the satanic Jonesdave didst rearrange, and lo! m = E/c^2! And God was angry, because he was too dumb to figure that sh!t out for himself. And he didst cast a thunderbolt at the apostate Jonesdave, who couldn't have given a f***, and still persists to this day!"

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
Invisible Black Holes and invisible Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Just like Jack and the Beanstalk. Except less believable.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
LOL @jonesdumb
Your flesh is of no importance to us. We are not interested in your trillions of cells within your decaying body. Have no fear - if you receive a thunderbolt to turn you into a mass of burnt pigshit, we will come to take you then.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
^^^^^^^WTF is this sh!t doing on a science site?

No. Satan/Lucifer was created by God


Wrong. No such entity as God, nor Satan. It is a fairy tale. Just like Jack and the Beanstalk. Except less believable.
says jones

And your evidence for that is...........?

Come on, jonesdumb - do show a little spine. You have made yet another accusation. So if you KNOW these things as fact - give us your references so that we may examine them. Yes?


No, you really don't get this burden of proof thing, do you? You make a dumb contention. You have to prove said contention. Otherwise, it's bollocks. That's the short version, anyway. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't have diddly, n'est-ce pas?
IwinUlose
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2018
LOL @jonesdumb
Your flesh is of no importance to us. We are not interested in your trillions of cells within your decaying body. Have no fear - if you receive a thunderbolt to turn you into a mass of burnt pigshit, we will come to take you then.


Historically, (according to the respective books detailing them) gods have not really looked kindly upon man portraying himself as a god. Pathologically, this is crazy as shit.

Also, iirc, Lucifer was cast out for not bowing when commanded to the newest model off the line: Man
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
^^^^^^^WTF is this sh!t doing on a science site?

No. Satan/Lucifer was created by God


Wrong. No such entity as God, nor Satan. It is a fairy tale. Just like Jack and the Beanstalk. Except less believable.
says jones

And your evidence for that is...........?

Come on, jonesdumb - do show a little spine. You have made yet another accusation. So if you KNOW these things as fact - give us your references so that we may examine them. Yes?


No, you really don't get this burden of proof thing, do you? You make a dumb contention. You have to prove said contention. Otherwise, it's bollocks. That's the short version, anyway. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't have diddly, n'est-ce pas?

says jones

Precisely. You have made certain statements to ME, and I now demand evidence to confirm your statements. In this regard, the burden of proof is on YOU. Nobody forced you to make such sick statements, yes?
IwinUlose
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
You have made certain statements to ME, and I now demand evidence to confirm your statements. In this regard, the burden of proof is on YOU. Nobody forced you to make such sick statements, yes?


If you were an institution, with agreed upon methods of transparency and verification, this kind of equivalence might make sense; but you aren't, it's not, and so it doesn't.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
LOL @jonesdumb
Your flesh is of no importance to us. We are not interested in your trillions of cells within your decaying body. Have no fear - if you receive a thunderbolt to turn you into a mass of burnt pigshit, we will come to take you then.


Historically, (according to the respective books detailing them) gods have not really looked kindly upon man portraying himself as a god. Pathologically, this is crazy as shit.

Also, iirc, Lucifer was cast out for not bowing when commanded to the newest model off the line: Man
says IloseUwin

The Christian and Jewish bibles have never portrayed man as a god, nor has man thought of himself as one. Except perhaps, for Egyptian Pharaohs.
Satan/Lucifer was not, as you say, cast out for not bowing to man. He has been cast out of the Heavenly Places long before the creation of man and was forced to dwelt on the Earth.

There are a lot of things that are, as you say, crazy as shit. So just continue on with your life.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
You have made certain statements to ME, and I now demand evidence to confirm your statements. In this regard, the burden of proof is on YOU. Nobody forced you to make such sick statements, yes?


If you were an institution, with agreed upon methods of transparency and verification, this kind of equivalence might make sense; but you aren't, it's not, and so it doesn't.
says IloseUwin

LOL Of course it makes sense. If jones was more of a moralist, he would not hesitate to provide the evidence required to prove his statements to me. But by not doing as requested, he only proves that he is immoral and has no regard for the law of evidence and proofs. He is another Anita Hill and Christine Balsey Ford - who lied through their teeth about judicial figures.
IwinUlose
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
I'm sorry I was trying to turn off the crazy spout; obviously I should have turned it the other way.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
I'm sorry I was trying to turn off the crazy spout; obviously I should have turned it the other way.
says IloseUwin

That's fine. You needn't apologise. I am not familiar with the term 'crazy spout'. Could you enlighten us?
Or do you mean the water spigot?
IwinUlose
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2018
Spigot could work, but spout has the imagery I was aiming for.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
SEU
As I don't adhere to any religion, I don't understand what you mean, ...

When you make comment of Lucifer and God and the Judeo Christian story that goes with it, you are very MUCH adhering to a religion... Calling it a religious philosophy is only an attempt to dilute your affiliation.
I don't regard myself or my Creationist community as "wrong". If there were any chance that we could be "wrong",

Statistically, you have a 50/50 chance o that...
we would have remediated our stance early on.

Or not...
But we are not wrong - and you are entitled to your own opinions. Just don't try to force it on us.

You've just opined that if it isn't your way, it's wrong.
Foisting yours, on those who come to a science site to avoid it, is exactly what you've done...
Kinda like that Madonna song "Don't tell me (what not to do)..."
Phyllis Harmonic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2018
What is "wrong" in the world is a matter of perspective. You hold some ideal of "rightness" about the world- your world. Your world is not my world. Our social morals are founded in the benefits conferred by certain behaviors, not through any supernatural agency.
I'll take real evidence over your "social morals" any time at all. The Babble about the magic daddy in the sky by the drunken stone age sheep herders is not "evidence" and your attempt to claim it is shows your lack of critical thought.


I think you misunderstood my comment. My point was that belief in magic sky gods is not necessary for what we call "morals". I made no claim that there is any evidence of supernatural agency, in fact, I was roundly dismissing such nonsense (or trying to)! I should have been more obviously emphatic about that, I guess.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2018
And your evidence for that is...........?

If there was really "One True God", we wouldn't need religion. There would be no need for dogma or indoctrination.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
SEU
As I don't adhere to any religion, I don't understand what you mean, ...

When you make comment of Lucifer and God and the Judeo Christian story that goes with it, you are very MUCH adhering to a religion... Calling it a religious philosophy is only an attempt to dilute your affiliation.
I don't regard myself or my Creationist community as "wrong". If there were any chance that we could be "wrong",

Statistically, you have a 50/50 chance o that...
we would have remediated our stance early on.

Or not...
But we are not wrong - and you are entitled to your own opinions. Just don't try to force it on us.

You've just opined that if it isn't your way, it's wrong.
Foisting yours, on those who come to a science site to avoid it, is exactly what you've done...
Kinda like that Madonna song "Don't tell me (what not to do)..."
says WhydG

The topic of the article is Evolution. And evolution is very much a part of the creation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
-contd-
If Evolution was not a major topic of discussion, then there would have been no way to intersperse Creationism to set the tone. But, as I have said time and time again, which seems to be ignored - Creationism is NOT a religion. The Creation IS science, although you may not regard it as such, due to your past or present indoctrination.
I have no quarrel with religions of any type - not even of Witchcraft or the worship of Baphomet. To each his own, I say, and it is the free will - free choices that make us who we are.

As for Madonna Ciccone, I am no fan of hers - although she did have a nice voice.

You seem to have misread my comments. Since others also opine that their way is right and mine is wrong - all we can do is to agree to disagree.

But still, the topic is Evolution, and it is an open-ended topic.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
The Onus is always on every one else
jonesdave> Wrong. No such entity as God, nor Satan. It is a fairy tale. Just like Jack and the Beanstalk. Except less believable.

jonesdave> No, you really don't get this burden of proof thing, do you? You make a dumb contention. You have to prove said contention. Otherwise, it's bollocks. That's the short version, anyway. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't have diddly, n'est-ce pas?

SEU> Precisely,
SEU> You have made certain statements to ME, and I now demand evidence to confirm your statements. In this regard, the burden of proof is on YOU. Nobody forced you to make such sick statements, yes?

SEU:- It does appear as though JD is making a statement "No such entity as God, nor Satan. It is a fairy tale" which require evidence from JD, peer reviewed articles, not only is JD not providing written experimental proof, he proclaims he has to prove nothing!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
And your evidence for that is...........?

If there was really "One True God", we wouldn't need religion. There would be no need for dogma or indoctrination.
says PhyllisH

There is, and no - we don't need religion. dogma or indoctrination. There is only the understanding of the One True God the Creator who created everything - as well as the first man.
It seems that humans resent the fact of having descended from a created being, and it is that hard resentment that has removed many from sanity into a self-imposed world of "it's them or us".
Meaning that religionists are the enemy - to be annihilated as quickly as possible to preserve science. But evolution is a part of Creation - where that which was created had been mechanically programmed to change as the need arises.
It's very easy to understand and accept. But many are those who will not allow others to accept it, all due to the fact they themselves reject it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
The Onus is always on every one else
jonesdave> Wrong. No such entity as God, nor Satan. It is a fairy tale. Just like Jack and the Beanstalk. Except less believable.

jonesdave> No, you really don't get this burden of proof thing, do you? You make a dumb contention. You have to prove said contention. Otherwise, it's bollocks. That's the short version, anyway. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't have diddly, n'est-ce pas?

SEU> Precisely,
SEU> You have made certain statements to ME, and I now demand evidence to confirm your statements. In this regard, the burden of proof is on YOU. Nobody forced you to make such sick statements, yes?

SEU:- It does appear as though JD is making a statement "No such entity as God, nor Satan. It is a fairy tale" which require evidence from JD, peer reviewed articles, not only is JD not providing written experimental proof, he proclaims he has to prove nothing!
says granville

-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
-contd-
jones believes that he is immune to having to provide evidence for what I consider to be inflammatory statements. I have no problem with his right to make those statements, but I also need the proof that would establish his credibility as a KEY WITNESS to what he had described.
It is like the sworn statements of the women who are accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of rape, sexual abuse when he was only 17. They had professed something to be true - but they cannot produce credible evidence that such events took place.

I have evidence for my side of at least 5 events.
But yes, the onus is on jones to provide the evidence of the nonexistence of the Creator, and other statements made. He won't do it because he can't.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
But Evolution is a substantial process that, without it animals and plants would have withered and died long ago, due to not being able to keep up with the changes in their environments. So it is to this shortfall that I would address religionists' lack of realistic understanding of the world and how it works. They have taken the Bible only at FACE-VALUE and have failed to understand it, and read between the lines - as well as to apply the discoveries that science has made to that which is stated in the first chapters of the Bible.
drrobodog
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2018
:Surveillance_Egg_Unit
the onus is on jones to provide the evidence of the nonexistence of the Creator,


Fallacy: Proving Non-Existence
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.


Tip: If you think you are being visited by aliens, gods, spirits, ghosts, or any other magical beings, just ask them for information that you can verify, specifically with a neutral third-party that would prove their existence. This would be simple for any advanced alien race, any god or heavenly being.

https://www.logic...xistence
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2018
No. Satan/Lucifer was created by God along with many other Angels
So who created those 900ft tall snoozing martians of yours pussytard? I suspect they were constructs of your own fevered brain.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2018
If there was really "One True God", we wouldn't need religion. There would be no need for dogma or indoctrination
No we would only need one religion. And all religions will tell you this.

But i suspect you are conflating theism and deism. Theistic gods write books and require worship. Deistic gods are whatever the philos who invented them want them to be.

Theists will often hijack deist godly notions because philos invented them to be especially difficult to disprove or even discuss.

But theist gods have nothing to do with deist gods. Theist gods are proud creatures who write books to brag about their exploits and power. But they will also claim to be perfect in these books and this is their downfall. Because these very books are a record of their imperfection.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2018
As dawkins put it

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

-and of course a liar and a cheat.

There is no way to reconcile these flaws with claims of perfection. And if imperfection can be demonstrated, even just once, then these gods are proven false.

"Leviticus 11:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

-Rabbits dont have cuds. The god who created them would know this.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2018
It's very easy to understand and accept.


Only if you have a god-shaped hole in your brain.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2018
It's very easy to understand and accept.


Only if you have a god-shaped hole in your brain.
says PhyllisH

A god-shaped hole in your brain. Now that's a new one I have never heard before.
Are you, perhaps, a neurosurgeon who is familiar with brain holes? Or perhaps you are related to SpookyOtto who is very familiar with his own arse-hole.
It is more than likely that SpookyOtto has a god-shaped hole in his brain, as he has claimed many times that he has seen a 900 foot glassy headed martian laying down on Mars.
If you are a medical doctor or psychiatrist, what would your diagnosis be of someone who claims to have seen a 900 foot glassy headed martian on Mars?
I don''t know what to make of it, Phyllis. Otto is one sick-in-the-head puppy who freely roams the physorg forums while talking about Martians and calling people pussaytards. That doesn't seem normal at all.
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2018
Oh dear GOD SEU!
You misunderstand the article you comment on. You misunderstand evolution. You misunderstand the comments you reply to. You misunderstand the principles of science. You even misunderstand religion. All in this one series of comments.
You should get a medal or something.
What do you want?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2018
But we know something is wrong in this world. If we are a product of evolution then we should just follow nature. But we don't. Because we're not
matter of perspective
Just because you dont have an explanation, doesnt mean one doesn't exist.

Humans arent wild animals. They're domesticated animals, consistently selected over 1000s of gens for their ability to forego their natural instincts in favor of the very unnatural demands of tribal living. They can surrender repro rights, die defending people who arent blood relatives, follow irrational orders, and believe irrational things.

Technology has thwarted all the natural elements that had served to keep our numbers in check. The result was chronic overpop. People banded together to protect their resources and themselves. People could still choose personal interests over those of the tribe, but that choice threatened tribal cohesion. And so they were often culled.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2018
I for one do read the article before I spout twaddle.

Either we are created or we are a product of random chance over time.

If created; we have a purpose, a destiny, an accounting of what we have done.
If by chance; there is no purpose, nothing happens, doesn't make a difference.

If you need that there be a god, to have a purpose, destiny....etc., then I have some really bad news for you. If instead of just reading the article, you tried comprehending it, then perhaps, you wouldn't be spouting twaddle. Simply put, you need to evolve.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2018
I for one do read the article before I spout twaddle.

Either we are created or we are a product of random chance over time.

If created; we have a purpose, a destiny, an accounting of what we have done.
If by chance; there is no purpose, nothing happens, doesn't make a difference.

If you need that there be a god, to have a purpose, destiny....etc., then I have some really bad news for you. If instead of just reading the article, you tried comprehending it, then perhaps, you wouldn't be spouting twaddle. Simply put, you need to evolve.
says antigoracle

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Whether or not you care for the idea that man was created and didn't evolve in stages when the need to evolve arises, along with all other animals - there are evidences that pertain specifically to the hard fact that man was set apart from those animals, due to man's destiny to rule the planet; have dominion over Earth and over the animals. Do you think it was accidental?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2018
-contd-
No, it was not accidental or some random element of Nature that created man.
Even science has discovered certain physical attributes that sets men (specifically) apart from the primates such as chimps, gorillas, bonobos, etc. amongst other things.
It is obviously your strong dislike and/or fear of possible retribution that forces you to negate the existence of our unseen Deity. But that's fine, and it is of no consequence to us that you and many others cannot stomach the relationship of the Creator to His creation, man.
You and all others may voice your displeasure that you do not share the unicelled ancestors that other animals have emerged from billions of years before.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2018
-contd-
But there is also the possibility that you have been well indoctrinated into the preference for having had the lowest common denominator as your ancient source of genesis. That is often preferred by those humans who live their lives as brutes and ne'er-do-wells who don't hold themselves accountable and responsible for their bad/poor choices. They will say, "I'm only human", which gives them justification for their actions.
Not to say that YOU in particular are in such a group.
However, the preference for having evolved from life forms who emerged from the slime and the hot places in or near volcanos, rather than having been created by God from damp clay that just happened to have the DNA from passing animals in it - is a very strange preference, indeed.
Satan/Lucifer enjoys the belittling of man; shaming man into following Satan's lead.
Satan/Lucifer has been quite successful throughout human history in getting humans to disavow their hallowed origin.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2018
-contd-
As to having a need for God in order to have a purpose; a destiny - man had been given the choice as to his plan of action; his path and ability to decide whether to do right or wrong.
Our God the Creator gave man Free Will so that, if he chose to do the right things, he could progress and move onward to greater things. Technology is one of those things that has enabled mankind to live longer and healthier; and go to the Moon.
But man is also capable of terrible things, and that is within the realm of Satan/Lucifer and his demons. Choosing to not understand that such things are real has been the downfall of man in so many ways. But, in the end, it is strictly up to all of you.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2018
^^^^^^^^What a load of religionist crap. Finished preaching, god boy? Why don't you bugger off to a creationist site, because you know sod all about science.
leetennant
4 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2018
^^^^^^^^What a load of religionist crap. Finished preaching, god boy? Why don't you bugger off to a creationist site, because you know sod all about science.


I've reported him but the mods refuse to get rid of it. It's garbled nonsense and it's detracting from a real discussion of the science.
drrobodog
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2018
there are evidences that pertain specifically to the hard fact that man was set apart from those animals,

Even science has discovered certain physical attributes that sets men (specifically) apart from the primates such as chimps, gorillas, bonobos, etc. amongst other things.

I would appreciate if you could share this evidence/discovery.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2018
Electron Orbital's are the Rules of Life

In The Vacuum, when a single lonely pristine proton is looking for its family in the infinite vacuous vacuum, it spies a lonely electron and happily shares one of its four orbital's and they happily go off into the vacuum together to join the infinite trillion upon trillion of pristine hydrogen nuclei, where do I hear the evolutionists in their wild cries as they happily let their evolutionist voices be heard in of the vacuum occupied by jostling pristine protons, The Rules of Evolution. One could also happily proclaim in the cries of creationist The Rules of Creation -
Defining a happily married hydrogen nuclei, there is neither Evolution nor Creationism
The only rule that exist for the single proton and electron is the proton has four empty orbital's where it happily shares with the encounters of single electrons as the protons nuclear force tolerates this marriage at its femto distance - The Rules of Life are Protonicly Written
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2018
I've reported him but the mods refuse to get rid of it. It's garbled nonsense and it's detracting from a real discussion of the science
Pussytard (pirouette russkiye pussycat_eyes obama_socks et al) the flooding, lying, ET-loving, sweet sorghum-farming imbecile has been banned before. Keep complaining.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2018
there are evidences that pertain specifically to the hard fact that man was set apart from those animals,

Even science has discovered certain physical attributes that sets men (specifically) apart from the primates such as chimps, gorillas, bonobos, etc. amongst other things.

I would appreciate if you could share this evidence/discovery.
says drrobodog

Of course - the descriptive word begins with the letters ba and is a very glaring part of the anatomy of chimps, gorillas, bonobos, and monkeys. Men are not equipped with it, though. Some other animals also don't have it, such as horses.
Other than that, it would be preferable for you to find that science for yourself as I did.
But I congratulate you on your alertness.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2018
We are as a alive as an electron as a proton is alive

Given sufficient time the molecules of life are created by the happily married proton and electron as a hydrogen nuclei, in Cometary form and planetary form where the hydrogen nuclei has its methods in the stars, of creating the elements necessary to form the molecules, precursor to cellular structures. As we are but a collection of protons and electrons where the neutron allow the proton to cross the coulomb barrier necessary to form oxygen and other elements for water is another molecule for cellular structure as we are but a collection of hydrogen nuclei with additional protons, neutrons and electrons as our thoughts are but molecular flow of electrochemical in synapses

We only think we are alive but in all reality we are just a rearrangement of hydrogen nuclei where the electrons flow electrochemical, as we are as a alive as an electron as a proton is alive!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2018
@granville
Well, that puts it all in a very different clamshell, doesn't it. From your keen perception of married life, if not actual coitus between one proton and one electron, you have gradually risen from the depths of depravity while you had been peeking into the privacy of the liaison of one proton and its partner, the beauteous electron in the Quantum Universe; and have now gone into the society of the multicellulared matrix wherein lies the truth of our very beginnings and endings as a multi-celled life form that is seemingly alive one minute and dead the next - as though the man inside each of us who never was and could have never been, had never understood that it was the cells who was the man all along.
And so it goes - that it is the cells within this bag of water that is the real man, and not the man who we think we are.
I, for one, protest this new indignity.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2018
https://www.youtu...n2kbBqV0

I will watch this to ease the pain of the realisation that we, who thought that we are the living, are not alive at all - but are only an arrangement of Hydrogen nuclei with additional electrons, protons and other particles who have just happened to drop in for a visit, but stayed.
Tis a sad day, indeed.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2018
The electrons RiverDance of life and the allusion of alive

RiverDance a perfect choice SEU, only a few pieces of music send those shivers down your spine as the beauteous electron in its Dance of the Orbital's beats its electrifying quantum fluctuations in partnership with its proton, as its electron siblings flow in the river of beat to the tune of the cellular multi-toes of those tapping shoes, our thoughts by hydrogen's partnership accessorising in complexity of electro-chemical cellular circuitry the electron has transferred the thought and feelings of its magnetic and electric field into our multi-cellular circuitry that the rules that govern the life of an electron and proton are the rules that give us the apparent consciousness we thing we have, but just as the electron thinks it is a live as we think we are alive in all reality the electron and complexity of construction is also under the allusion of being alive

In truth, we doth protest most strongly to no avail
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2018
In truth, we doth protest most strongly to no avail as to be conscience of alive is not to be alive
SEU> Tis a sad day, indeed.

For those of unconscious thought knew deep down in their tacit memories that it is the electron and proton that maintain are earthly presence, but our daily conscience thought knows not of these earthly things, as just as the electron makes us with its electrifying properties believe we are alive is also to give purpose to each solitary electron in the vacuum in its 66,000yotta life span to believe it is also alive in the ethereal conscience world of our mind

As this why the electron in its eternal life does not timely dwell on this fact, as it constructs in its complexity apparently living cells, it doth not dwell on its and our reality, as we are both neither alive

This is truly a sad day indeed
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2018
@granville

Forsooth to say, and with much laughter thereof, the present and the past have thus contrived and combined to mock our humanity, and to relate to us the solemnity of that particular latter-day understanding of which our egotistical minds had long ignored, even after the advent of the science that provides us with the proven fact that the Program features live multicellular dancing within the flowing rivers of cellular activities/behaviours. The dance of the multicellular community has a nice aspect to it, but oftentimes turns into an animalistic wild and brutal response to the negative approaches that the brain deigns to inflict upon the (usually) friendly community.

So, humans, (only through the DNA of animals) are not far removed from the slimy broth from which multicellular life crawled out of; and where the slime had nourished the forebears of those humans who proudly claim inheritance and descendancy from which they evolved into their present form.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2018
-contd-
But what you have related is correct, in that the multicellular community who dance and make merry upon the rivers from which they draw sustenance - are but a slightly higher order of the real Mechanics of the Quantum Universe - the particles of which you spoke with unbounded relish.

The dance of the energetic Particles as they live along the rivers of Time and the Vacuum of Space is a wondrous Program that is incomparable to all. It is so unique and lovely that one must think that those who wish to capture and control it, must be bereft of their human senses.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2018
So, we have, first and foremost, the primary base of operations, in which the energetic Dance of the Particles is starring - Madam Electron, Sir Proton, Grandmother Neutron, and a large assortment of lesser relatives in the neighborhood who always seem to show up unannounced.

Then, we have the molecules in the next higher level who are responsible for the chemistry that make up the unicellular and multicellular bodies in motion that have the potential to evolve into higher life forms.

After which, the full human animal is propagated, from conception through gestation through its live birth (if it's lucky), and then all through its growth spurts and transitions until it finally succumbs to the decay of aging and death.
It is in this level where the human animal believes itself to be a living organism without the benefit of the first two levels, and its mind tells it that this is so. But when the mind dies along with the body, is that all there is? Or is there something more?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2018
But, was it ever really alive? Or is it just a mechanical automaton/robot of flesh, blood and bone that will eventually return to its Quantum primary base of operations where thoughts, words and deeds are gone as though they had never been, and with no need for any accounting?

In a situation where there is no need for an accounting for thoughts, words and deeds, then there would not be any need for each individual to temper its behaviour so as to comply with the Laws of a civilised society, when what one does, says or even thinks will not matter anyway at the end of life. And many will go unpunished for their terrible infractions and crimes against their fellow human animals, but so what?
So, apart from the hurt feelings, the taking of "lives", and the fear and indignation that the criminal mind causes to other human animals - why do humans become so agitated against someone who is only doing what he or she feels like doing. They will die anyway, eventually.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2018
Rules of order
SEU> why do humans become so agitated against someone who is only doing what he or she feels like doing. They will die anyway, eventually.

SEU:- From the first steps of a proton and electron tying the knot, to the inferno's in stars, to galactic supernovas explosions are order and rules
When we see this apparent chaos in supernovas and chaos in quantum interaction, they are not chaos, but order and rules
We have our rules as we do not destroy are way of life, our constructions and family life
SEU, the atoms in supernovas explosions are not destructive; these are the proton and electrons rules of construction in the vacuum we are constructed by the elements created in supernovas
Looking at the proton and electron in this light, they can only construct on this explosive scale
In the atomic world the rules are more rigidly adhered to than in the human world, as without this galactic explosive and quantum world of order we would not exist
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2018
Complexity of thought in complex atomic cellular creations

When the proton and electron goes supernova taking a galaxy apart breaking apart stars and planets it is not destroying life on that planet, it is creating more stars, more planets and more life!
SEU> the fear and indignation that the criminal mind causes to other human animals.

When the criminal mind causes fear of life and limb, that person is intentionally causing destruction with no intention of recreating what has been destroyed.

This is why the proton and electron are strictly adhering to their rules of order and construction because they cannot operate in any other way, as this breaking of the rules can only occur in the complexity of thought in their complex cellular creations!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2018
@granville
Yes, I agree that the Quantum Universe retains its own Rules of Order that remains infinitely so - never really changing other than from outside forces, such as with the ever so slight pull of gravity on the electrons of a Caesium clock over a period of 300,000 Earth years.

It is yet unknown if the QU also adheres to the Earth's years' duration of Time.
Other than that, quantum particles are safe and secure until humans decide to force them to collide to see what happens.

But at the next higher level, the war of Chemistry begins, where cells of both multi and uni must learn the Rules of Engagement if they are to survive and procreate their own kind. They, at their level, ingest, digest, and eliminate - where particles at the first level have no such ability (as far as we know). Multiplying quickly, the cells are only aware of 2 things: eating and procreation. Divide and conquer - for the greater the number, the less chance for the opposition to survive.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2018
-contd-
But, therein lies the Crux of the Biscuit - as with humans, it is not "the more the merrier" - it becomes the survival of the fittest under the duress of multiplying organisms where there is certain to be a die-off when food becomes scarce to feed the multiplying masses. Such a scenario amongst dangerous organisms such as flesh-eating bacteria and those which cause amoebic dysentery is regarded as desirable. But is it really?

At the third highest level, the organism called "human" was made to be a sentient being, able to gain knowledge and learn the differences between good and evil, and to learn how to reject the evil and embrace the positive and good when faced with the choices of one over the other. Humans also understand that oftentimes, bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. This is not just "the luck of the draw", but may occur due to "other forces", which will not be spoken of here this day. "Choice" still plays a major role
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2018
@granville
In my comments to tbglarsson in another forum here in physorg, I said that the planets which are known in our Solar System had come from another Star system, where the Star went supernova and all of its planets had been kicked out of their orbits, flying off to slow down and land in the disk that was to become home of our SS. This may, in terms of the Evolutionary process, have provided these planetary objects with a second 'life', so as to continue planetary evolution, as we on this Earth are witness to, as the Earth has revealed to us the Mechanics of its evolution in the form of tectonic activities; weather patterns caused by changes in Terran Dynamics; and the magnificent Electromagnetic Fields surrounding us with beautiful sky shows.

And it all comes down to the First Level wherein the Dance of the Particles takes place that is the starting point for all things. There is no such thing as "rest mass" - for ALL Mass is taking part in the Dance, whirling about.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.