Evolution question.

[Sneaker]

Ants have intelligence greater than many much larger mammals, which negates your contention regarding brain size and intelligence.

My point is that you are full of shit and the general audience should be aware of pseudoscientific personalities that defame science by spreading misinformation.

OK. So what is your genius advice about the topic? what is actual "scientific" opinion about ToE.. Is it just a theory? no scientific proof? or is "the only" theory available to mankind to explain evolution? waiting eagerly..

 

[rockstar08]

well all those who believe in Religions , should thank that peoples who believe in Evolution , suppose if they say that optimus prime visit our planet before Adam and Eve ( A.s ) ...

 

[lifesci]

OK. So what is your genius advice about the topic? what is actual "scientific" opinion about ToE.. Is it just a theory? no scientific proof? or is "the only" theory available to mankind to explain evolution? waiting eagerly..

Don't wait too eagerly. I'm not gonna waste time on narrow-minded idiots. Arguing with unlearned is hard enough but unlearned and narrow-minded? That's just a great waste of time. No point in discussing such complex topics with those that do not understand even the basics of the scientific method.

There are no "proofs" in science, only evidence. Proofs are reserved for pseudoscience.

Topic is evolution not Theory of Evolution.

Have fun!

 

[Sneaker]

Don't wait too eagerly. I'm not gonna waste time on narrow-minded idiots. Arguing with unlearned is hard enough but unlearned and narrow-minded? That's just a great waste of time. No point in discussing such complex topics with those that do not understand even the basics of the scientific method.

There are no "proofs" in science, only evidence. Proofs are reserved for pseudoscience.

Topic is evolution not Theory of Evolution.

Have fun!

LOL... OK, what about "evidence" for ToE, enough evidence to accept it? Enough evidence to reject it? Or just sitting on fence? Here is another challenge for you "Mr. Science", were Adam and eve actual, first 2 persons on earth from whom we all descended? or they just made up stuff? What do you think pseudoscience hater? Also, please advice how to sop being "narrow minded idiot" and expand my horizon? by considering religious books as alternative "theories"? or by denying ToE? how???

No offense, but thats a very ignorant statement.

There are a myriad of species that show intelligence. Whales, dolphins, heck even ants that don't have neurons (only ganglia) are smarter than cows that have a brain 1000x larger in size.


If that's all it is then it's a paradox that contradicts one of the core principles of a legitimate scientific theory: falsifiability.

Paradox: every offspring is borne of natural selection.
How is this falsifiable?

Except that natural selection doesn't work that way. If you show a dangerous trait (disadvantageous to kill) in a species without any advantages or very less advantages, for sufficiently long time and the species still survives without modification, natural selection is falsified. Contrary is also true. If there is an obvious advantage trait but even then the species dies out "because of that trait", natural selection is falsified. Another way is if there is a natural pressure (high radiation, anti-biotics, less food and water) that was newly applied but the species neither changes nor gets extinct for sufficiently long time. All these are falsifiable conditions for natural selection..... then we need new explanation in-effect new ToE..

 

[lifesci]

Brother I believe in evolution, the problem is with uneducated people like Harun Yahya spreading their ideologies around in the guise of Islamic books. These books are sold in Islamic books shops and sadly sometimes these are the only books on science that Muslims read...so naturally they will oppose evolution. And as you said all these idiots who are refuting evolution these days are just aping the Christians. This is a relatively new trend since Muslims have not always refuted evolution...in fact I believe even Ibn Katheer and Allamah Iqbal wrote on the topic.

Evolution, today, is very well estabilished. The mechanisms behind it are debatable. Darwinian Natural Selection presents strong evidence but has its limitations in specific circumstances, although the other theories may not be as well researched.

I see no qualms between religion and science. The issue of Christianity, especially Catholicism, with science is one that doesn't apply to most other religions, due to both content differences and interpretation methods. Nietzsche explained the cause very well in his 'Antichrist' and Averroes in his ' I forgot the name '.

Today, the only Muslims I see having problems with evolution are mostly those that 1) don't understand science very well; 2) don't understand religion very well, or; 3) understand neither science nor religion.

Then we have similar non-Muslim idiots who will see a contradiction between Christianity and science, and use that contradiction on other religions that they've no idea about (basically putting all religions under one banner lead by Christian contradictions). In this group as well, similar mechanism for defiance: ignorance of science, religion, or both.

Sorry state of affair among both groups.

 

[Sneaker]

Evolution, today, is very well estabilished. The mechanisms behind it are debatable. Darwinian Natural Selection presents strong evidence but has its limitations in specific circumstances, although the other theories may not be as well researched.

I see no qualms between religion and science. The issue of Christianity, especially Catholicism, with science is one that doesn't apply to most other religions, due to both content differences and interpretation methods. Nietzsche explained the cause very well in his 'Antichrist' and Averroes in his ' I forgot the name '.

Today, the only Muslims I see having problems with evolution are mostly those that 1) don't understand science very well; 2) don't understand religion very well, or; 3) understand neither science nor religion.

Then we have similar non-Muslim idiots who will see a contradiction between Christianity and science, and use that contradiction on other religions that they've no idea about (basically putting all religions under one banner lead by Christian contradictions).

Sorry state of affair among both groups.

Evolution, today, is very well estabilished. The mechanisms behind it are debatable. Darwinian Natural Selection presents strong evidence but has its limitations in specific circumstances, although the other theories may not be as well researched.

I have been saying this all the time. Disagree about other theories not being researched, like Lemark's theory. However, disagreement here is very insignificant. Rest of your post oozes bigotry. You never answered my questions though. Were Adam and Eve (as described in religious books) real people from whom we (all homo sapiens) descend? or they are "metaphorical" (nice way of saying made-up characters)? Add-on question, did great flood as described in religious books happen? Please don't add any other things in your next reply, just answer these question. Any further things you can reply in another post.

 

[lifesci]

I have been saying this all the time. Disagree about other theories not being researched, like Lemark's theory. However, disagreement here is very insignificant. Rest of your post oozes bigotry. You never answered my questions though. Were Adam and Eve (as described in religious books) real people from whom we (all homo sapiens) descend? or they are "metaphorical" (nice way of saying made-up characters)? Add-on question, did great flood as described in religious books happen? Please don't add any other things in your next reply, just answer these question. Any further things you can reply in another post.

I don't care who they were or what they did. You are here to mock religion in a thread dedicated explicitly to evolution. This is why I call you narrow-minded first and then second when you rant meaningless psycho babble on subjects you yourself are ignorant on.

There are several questions I asked on the previous page which you haven't answered which indicates to me not only your ignorance on the subject but also your bigotry.

 

[Sneaker]

I don't care who they were or what they did. You are here to mock religion in a thread dedicated explicitly to evolution. This is why I call you narrow-minded first and then second when you rant meaningless psycho babble on subjects you yourself are ignorant on.

There are several questions I asked on the previous page which you haven't answered which indicates to me not only your ignorance on the subject but also your bigotry.

I have no intention to mock anything, except irrationality. You have never contradicted whatever I said. You say intelligence is not human specific, I say the same. You say Evolution can happen in other ways too I say there is no full understanding of other phenomenon but there is no questions being asked about Natural Selection being one of them (whether it is only the mechanism is still being debated)? what is the things that you disagree? that humans did not evolve from 2 people? or that evolution doesn't "necessarily" lead to intelligence? in evolutionary terms, intelligence v/s survival, survival always wins? I am asking these questions because I can guess what you are going with calling me "pseudoscience" advocate, idiot, and narrow minded. If I had million dollars, I would bet that you are trying to claim "your religion and only your religion" is perfectly in agreement with evolution findings. Whoever says otherwise is "mis-guided", "mis-interpret" etc..... that is why you are dilly-dallying without answering direct questions, which are damn simple to answer if you wanted to...

 

[lifesci]

I have no intention to mock anything, except irrationality. You have never contradicted whatever I said. You say intelligence is not human specific, I say the same. You say Evolution can happen in other ways too I say there is no full understanding of other phenomenon but there is no questions being asked about Natural Selection being one of them (whether it is only the mechanism is still being debated)? what is the things that you disagree? that humans did not evolve from 2 people? or that evolution doesn't "necessarily" lead to intelligence? in evolutionary terms, intelligence v/s survival, survival always wins? I am asking these questions because I can guess what you are going with calling me "pseudoscience" advocate, idiot, and narrow minded. If I had million dollars, I would bet that you are trying to claim "your religion and only your religion" is perfectly in agreement with evolution findings. Whoever says otherwise is "mis-guided", "mis-interpret" etc..... that is why you are dilly-dallying without answering direct questions, which are damn simple to answer if you wanted to...

Look buddy, it's evident you are trying very hard to incorporate religion for bashing into a thread explicitly made for evolution; you can deny it or sugar coat it, but at the end everybody else here can see what's happening. I said it before I don't care about religion nor do I see any qualms. This is the typical troll behaviour adopted by people who mock religion - that any disagreement on evolutionary concepts must have a root in religion. Now I know it must be very frustrating and clearly for you, it is also unfathomable to realize that somebody disagrees on your preconceived notions on evolution and at the same time doesn't have the opinion rooted from religion. In this case, I can't help you any further. I can't show the sunrise to a blind person. You have a problem when it comes to science and religion. I don't. You can't understand why I don't, so you conspire it must be religion. This is a definitive example of narrow-mindedness. Don't believe me? Look it up in the dictionary.
And of course I will call you pseudoscientific when you make pseudoscientific claims. One of the most important aspects of the scientific method you learn in post-secondary academics is how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, and you keep displaying the pseudoscientific aspect again and again, and I'm only compelled to point it out.

Quote the questions I posted and write the answer as the questions asked instead of twisting words around. Don't put words into my mouth. You didn't give any clear answer.
________________

Here, I reposted,

Why species will get dumber with shrinking brain? This is the logic commonly employed in pseudoscientific circles. Ants have brains a 1000x smaller than cows yet possess greater intelligence. Why? That's a good quandary for you to chew over while searching for answers on Google.

And how exactly are those "other humans" or neanderthals possessing matching intelligence? As per the fossil record, the neanderthal's frontal lobe privation was the consequence of its enlarged visual cortex. That alone puts your argument to rest. I hope you know human brain anatomy in detail enough to gouge my 6 years of studying Neuroscience. Perhaps you know something I completely missed?

Don't bother asking anymore questions until you've answered these questions without twisting words, without putting words into my mouth telling me what I'm implying, and without asking anymore stupid questions. Give clear answer or I will assume logically that you are a bigot and ignorant on the subject.

Happy Google searching!

 

[Sneaker]

Look buddy, it's evident you are trying very hard to incorporate religion for bashing into a thread explicitly made for evolution; you can deny it or sugar coat it, but at the end everybody else here can see what's happening. I said it before I don't care about religion nor do I see any qualms. This is the typical troll behaviour adopted by people who mock religion - that any disagreement on evolutionary concepts must have a root in religion. Now I know it must be very frustrating and clearly for you, it is also unfathomable to realize that somebody disagrees on your preconceived notions on evolution and at the same time doesn't have the opinion rooted from religion. In this case, I can't help you any further. I can't show the sunrise to a blind person. You have a problem when it comes to science and religion. I don't. You can't understand why I don't, so you conspire it must be religion. This is a definitive example of narrow-mindedness. Don't believe me? Look it up in the dictionary.
And of course I will call you pseudoscientific when you make pseudoscientific claims. One of the most important aspects of the scientific method you learn in post-secondary academics is how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, and you keep displaying the pseudoscientific aspect again and again, and I'm only compelled to point it out.

Quote the questions I posted and write the answer as the questions asked instead of twisting words around. Don't put words into my mouth. You didn't give any clear answer.
________________

Here, I reposted,



Don't bother asking anymore questions until you've answered these questions without twisting words, without putting words into my mouth telling me what I'm implying, and without asking anymore stupid questions. Give clear answer or I will assume logically that you are a bigot and ignorant on the subject.

Happy Google searching!

Which religion(s)? where?
You need to get into a English comprehension class ASAP . Who said shrinking brain MUST reduce intelligence? Here is my comment with added emphases - "Now imagine a situation where brain gets bigger and starts an increase in child and mother's mortality (thus negative pressure).. ". Second question is also irrelevant because you agree to my point already that intelligence is not human specific. So, what is pseudoscietific about anything? except that some religious views are being questioned (like Adam and Eve are just fiction and never existed, no god(s) created any creatures etc).......
You said - "your preconceived notions on evolution". What is my preconceived notion about evolution (not ToE)? what is your notion? where do you disagree? Do you disagree with my preconceived notion that Adam and Eve were just figment of imagination and science has evidence against that? You seem to be ticked off, did I hurt your religious sentiments? tst.. tst...

 

[Mugwop]

Elaborate please

Hi sorry for responding late.What i was trying to say was that the flagellum has a fascinating design and the only way it arose was by design. Evolution can't explain who the designer is. On a side note I believe in evolution the greater species destroys the inferior one.

Tell me something new. Ants (or insects in general) have brains similar to mammals? LOL.. In anyways, one important question, What is your point (especially considering you signed up to post this)?

Ants like to declare war on other ant colonies.

 

[Sneaker]

Hi sorry for responding late.What i was trying to say was that the flagellum has a fascinating design and the only way it arose was by design. Evolution can't explain who the designer is. On a side note I believe in evolution the greater species destroys the inferior one.


Ants like to declare war on other ant colonies.

Looks like you did not go through the discussion after your comment...

 

[Mugwop]

Looks like you did not go through the discussion after your comment...

Actually I did but I'm just here to talk about ants and Megalodons

 

[Sneaker]

Actually I did but I'm just here to talk about ants and Megalodons

That is nice of you. Declaring war thingy was already known, anything new?

 

[lifesci]

You need to get into a English comprehension class ASAP . Who said shrinking brain MUST reduce intelligence?

You did: "then brain will start shrinking again (species gets "dumber")."
I guess the Google searches were unsuccessful hence resorting to word play.

Second question is also irrelevant because you agree to my point already that intelligence is not human specific.

Nope. Wrong again. Like I said, don't put words in my mouth.

My point is: brain size generally doesn't affect intelligence; neanderthals DID NOT have human matching intelligence.

Your point: decrease in brain size will make species dumber; neanderthals had human matching intelligence.

I asked specifically about differences in brain anatomy. You gave no reply. You have failed to answer the questions again when asked directly, indicating general ignorance on the subject and bigotry.

So, what is pseudoscietific about anything?

Asking for proofs in science is pseudoscientific and does not meet the systematics of the scientific method. The word 'proof' is most common in pseudoscientific literature.

except that some religious views are being questioned (like Adam and Eve are just fiction and never existed, no god(s) created any creatures etc).......

Do you disagree with my preconceived notion that Adam and Eve were just figment of imagination and science has evidence against that? You seem to be ticked off, did I hurt your religious sentiments? tst.. tst...

Nope, just pointing out the repetitive bigotry: the lengths you go to in every post to incorporate religion for mocking in a thread discussing specifically evolution.

Eagerly awaiting more word play and mocking.