The Problem with Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Slowmutant, what the hell are you on about...?
That was sarcasm, pal. Go take a nap, "gramps".
Go on - I date you to call me "kid" again.

Do you even know how old I am, buckwheat? Show a little more respect and you might be treated with more in turn.

Survival of the fittest is not necessary for evolution to happen. Differential rates of reproductive success whose cause is heritable variance (of organisms) is sufficient cause for evolutionary change.

Why must God and Evolution be so mutually exclusive? I'm willing to imagine the Divine Hand at work behind all these processes. Or is evolution too complicated for God to understand?

It's not at odds with God's omnipotence, just the Bible's account of how things happened as they've been read for at least 3300 years. Anyway, why do you bring this up? Care to have me discuss my views on the doctrine of Creation so I can get more hate speech directed at me?

Oh, don't bring up that intelligent design crap! If it were even remotely plausible, I doubt creating a primitive backwater at the edge of a galaxy at the edge of the universe populated by dimwitted folk who's idea of fun is stabbing others for kneeling on a different knee whilst worshipping said creator could be considered intelligent.

If there is a conscious power to the universe - IF - it would be a part of, or rather the whole, universe itself - not it's maker, save for dimensional argument - another time.
Not some magic critter with human image superimposed by limited Christian understanding as some supreme being with an "incomprehensible" plan involving mass slaughter on aforementioned backwater.

As a scientist and educated man, having had to deal with religious fascism, I can be pleased in saying the religious - die-hard bro athiests included - can suck on the hairiest part of my nutsack, quite frankly. What in the hell ever happened to genuine scientific curiosity? Dead-end, no argument, nope, no way, no contesteds irritate me.

Wow - seems like a rant, but actually quite calm. I'm from NT, that'll serve as explanation.

Actually, our solar system is at 26kilolightyears radius, whereas the radius of our galaxy is 50kilolightyears, so we're not exactly at the edge of the galaxy. Would you prefer we be located in the center of the galaxy along with the supermassive blackhole located therein?

Uh... iambitaparakeet, where did you get those figures?
We're in a spiral arm of the milky way galaxy - twice the size your quoting, with our solar system bmnot even close to the numbers you suggest! The nearest star is four light years away - if our solar system was 26 KILO lightyears in radius - there'd be hell to pay!

I don't think you're understanding my terms.

The distance of the solar system from the center of the Milky Way is 26,000 light years.

The radius of the Milky Way, radius defined as the distance from center to edge, is 50,000 light years. You are thinking of the diameter most likely, which is twice that of the radius by definition.

A search for reference, with positive results.

Ah, that's what you meant. I got thrown off by your phrasing.

You do realize the leading modern paradigm in cosmology claims this universe has neither a center nor an edge? How would you support the claim that (1) the universe has an edge, and (2) that we are on a part of the edge?

Well, the universe - by my view - does have an "edge" of sorts, though not one by terrestrial terms... Tricky to explain, especially with my language difficulties...
Let's see - if you can try to imagine opposites being presentat one point, somehow one yet apart... The universe is infantile, and expanding. Odd term, infantile universe, but still...
The edge of the universe does not exist yet, in a way... The merging of reality and non-reality and their distinction in the same moment... A non presence of time until there is time.
The outside of the universe does not function under the same laws as the universe, it's the opposite. It doesn't exist yet. Of course, it never did exist either - until reality non reality is... There is no word or value to express the kind of nothing, because that in itself would be a something...

I suppose I can sum it up by saying the edge of the universe is real in it's inevitability... That's as far as contemporary language can allow me to explain the concept.

As for our world being at that edge - it isn't, yet, it can't be. But it's far enough away from the universal "core", if such a word can apply to it, that it might as well be on a true edge.
Just outside the city limits, so to speak.

Are you trying to refer to the Hypersphere model?

You have just describe "survival of the fittest". Biologists define "fitness" specifically in terms of "differential rates of reproductive success whose cause is heritable variance". Evolutionary fitness has nothing at all to do with being "better" or "best" on any other criterion than reproductive success. That's it. That's the beginning and end of "fitness" when it comes to evolutionary theory.
Thus, it is possible for completely "inferior" human beings to actually be far more evolutionarily fit than are their non-reproducing "superiors".

Actually, I was referring to my own theory - I HATE referring to other peoples theories if I can avoid it!
I've never heard of hypersphere. Who coined that? What is it?

And how do you know that we're primitive? Can you produce examples of other technologies that demonstrate we are primitive. For all you can actually prove, humanity is the most intelligent species to ever appear in the universe. For all you can actually prove, our technology is the most advanced technology to have ever appeared so far.



When did you live in Iran?