Quote (Modulok2405 @ Jul 22 2022 02:42am)

"Christian have an intellect behind it"

Yeah, dude, Christians always have "an intellect" (which is god I assume) behind everything because they cannot accept that not everything can be known at once. God explains everything right?

You cant explain it, so it must be good. Thats basically your argument. Thats why religions can't evolve themselves. Because their believe has already explained everything.
If religion would still rule the world, the earth would still be flat, we would still get water from wells and would burn red haired women.

Yes I believe evolution is a seamless transition. All the data points to that conclusion and it is also easily explainable. And again, its not a random process it is totally logical.

Tell me what it is specifically that you dont understand and we can talk about it.

Quote (TiStuff @ Jul 22 2022 03:55pm)

you ever heard "the aliens did it" isnt that the same as saying a creator. the christian isnt as alone as you would want to believe.

"....believe has already explained everything"
(science evolves. whats funny about it is the claim that it evolves or has a self correcting mechanism of course if its always self correcting how can one know if its really ever fact?)
your second part is subjective reasoning.

"And again, its not a random process it is totally logical."
(o? its a guided process? how is it guided? i have never heard an atheist say lefe is the result of a guided process unless "the aliens did it")

"Tell me what it is specifically that you dont understand and we can talk about it."
(lets talk about the questions you ignore)

did you look into RNA world hypothesis? it used to me the darling of abiogenesis, now its shit.

ah? "macro" is nonsense, lets hear more than assertion. O? so now you do claim to understand evolution? you have the explanation how a completely random process produces viable coherent information?
(never mind here you said its not random)

"absolutely seamless transition" ? you believe that? stephan j gould said:
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. "
(you know more than this dude?)

how about what dawkins is stumped on?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnWdlmHzI9g

Quote (Modulok2405 @ Jul 23 2022 12:49am)

There is not only "random" and "guided", you know?

Evolution happen through the passing on of genes. Exactly like you pass on your genes to your children. But on a mich bigger scale.

Very simplyfied example: If out of a bunch of dogs, the dog with the biggest nose is the strongest, he might mate more than the other dogs and have more baby dogs. He passes on his genes and his children happen to have big noses. If this goes on for millions of years you might have a very different type animal because of this and this animal has a giant nose. I know that was oversimplyfied but I guess you know ehere I am coming from. Evolution isnt random nor guided. There is no sudden macroevolution.

Stephen Gould is by the way not opposing evolution at all, but what he doesnt like is Darwin's position about Evolution always having positive outcomes. Which to be fair is a good point. Passing on Genes is not necessarily always for the better.
Look at us humans. Studies have shown that people of lesser intelligence have way more children than more intelligent people which means their genes are passed on lot more. A Devolution you could say.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Jul 24 2022 04:30pm)

Random processes will always produce useful information if left alone long enough. It's random. That means it will hit all the states possible, including the useful ones.

Now if you add a selecting process to keep useful information and discard useless information, such as any arbitrary survival pressure, you will get evolution.

It's really that simple. Random change and unequal survival will always create evolution.

Quote (TiStuff @ Jul 25 2022 05:59pm)

what you have is merely a belief that is untestable. even if the information did swirl together some how it still needs to read it and still needs the molecular machines to carry out the instructions.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Jul 25 2022 01:30am)

Random processes will always produce useful information if left alone long enough. It's random. That means it will hit all the states possible, including the useful ones.

Now if you add a selecting process to keep useful information and discard useless information, such as any arbitrary survival pressure, you will get evolution.

It's really that simple. Random change and unequal survival will always create evolution.

Quote (TiStuff @ Jul 24 2022 11:51am)

nobody is disputing the fact that dogs hump and make more dogs. what is not explained is how the humping doge got here.

Quote (Modulok2405 @ Jul 25 2022 12:33pm)

I dont disagree with you.
Of course life started out random, but evolution isnt exactly what you would call random by definition because its the mating creatures that define what their offspring will be like.
But yeah, what you say is true.

Quote (TiStuff @ Jul 25 2022 10:59am)

what you have is merely a belief that is untestable. even if the information did swirl together some how it still needs to read it and still needs the molecular machines to carry out the instructions.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Jul 25 2022 07:49pm)

Mating isn't random, but the mutations are random and recombination of parental genes is random.

Quote (Modulok2405 @ Jul 25 2022 10:38am)

Oh thats just you. Most people understand where the humping dogs came from.
A dog has ancestors and that ancestor has ancestors. If you have the slightest genetic changes happening per generation for millions and millions of generations you can literally go from any creature to any other creature.

You have to understand timescales man. Ridiculous that creationists believe every story out of the bible no matter how stupid it is, while not being able to put 1 and 1 together.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Jul 25 2022 10:49am)

Mating isn't random, but the mutations are random and recombination of parental genes is random.



It's not untestable at all. It's been validated experimentally literally thousands of times.

Where the molecular machines came from is irrelevant to evolution. God could have created life, and then evolution changed it. Evolution assumes that life is already there.