The truth about evolution

>>8591226
B-but house flies can diverge into separate species over the course of a human life

>>8591231
If that was true, and evolution is real. houseflies would have surpassed humans in intelligence millions of years ago

The houseflies didn't need to evolve human-lvl intelligence.

>>8591226
Hearty kek

>>8591226
Good God

>>8591226
So... anyone can publish to Vixra?

>>8591226

You realize, of course, that the rate of evolution Darwinists posit is a tiny fraction of the rate needed for the Biblical narrative to work? All the diversity among, for example, "cat kind" has emerged in just 4,000 years? That's billions of times faster than Darwinian evolution can work.

>>8591720
>Darwinists
fgt pls

>>8591729

How would you distinguish between evolution in a scientific sense and evolution in the more general sense? We speak of "Newtonians" and "Einsteinians", why not "Darwinists"?

>>8591735
>We speak of "Newtonians" and "Einsteinians"
No, "we" do not.

>>8591284
Evolution isnt purporsive. It doesnt aim toward anything just adaptation to specific niches. Consider that a fraction of the life on earth has any intelligence.

>>8591720
If you read the paper youll see you neednt bother defending yourself against this rubbish

>>8591771

Sure, but it's funny that they don't seem to realize their own theory is hurt more than that of Darwin by these "findings".

>>8591752
>Evolution isnt purporsive. It doesnt aim toward anything just adaptation to specific niches
That's true from the perspective of individual organisms. But consider an ecosystem and the purpose appears to be towards diversity both horizontally in terms of numbers and vertically in terms of food chains. Consider evolution on the scale of the planet and this vertical compnent still applies, but also now includes sentience which is a handy tool, but no more essential for the survival of a top-of-the-food-chain species like a lion than it is for a colony of ants. Difficult to see a reason other than

>the purpose of planetary evolution is the development of sentience

>>8592241

This doesn't follow at all. The universe self-complicates at every level, this is somehow related to entropy but seems to be a simple fact of reality. Asking why it does this, or attributing this fact to some underlying purpose, is fallacious.

>>8591284
Intelligence isn't the most desirable trait in houseflies, rather fast reflexes, wings etc
Evolution does not tend towards intelligence, only towards survivability in a particular habitat

>>8592241
Thats not purpose, just the factors that optimally allow biological systems to continually persevere. To allow for say an ecosystems own survival. That doesnt necessitate purpose, just emergent properties incidental to somethings existence. Sentience is like that too. Sentience is a product of sensory inputs. Organisms share mutual information with their environment to optimise the energy exchange necessary to fight entropy and sentience emerges as the demands for mutual infornation become more stringent, organisms stay out of equilibrium, are more complex or their environments fluctuate more. But again this is just incidental to an organism of given complexity's own existence.

Reminder: the brain is one of the more calorie-needy organs. A smaller and simpler brain is usually more beneficial to survival than having intelligence. Anatomical adaptations are way more efficient than cranial.

>>8591226
Tbh big steps in sentience are quite rare i bet and isolated. People forget most organisms are very simple too but still evolved over millions of years. Large changes in complexity seem to be relatively rare too but still interesting why or how it happens. Just by luck. Some guys got a theory about abiogenesis irreversible processes seems interesting

>>8592292
Having brains seems to be necessary for very complex organisms though. In a way, i think brains are like any other organ you know. Similar roles.

>>8591284
That's not how evolution works...

>>8592257
>seems to be a simple fact of reality
To which we can either assign purpose or not. We really have no clue which is correct, there is no evidence for either.

But consider this:
>>8592285
>just emergent properties incidental to somethings existence.
That is a heck of a big 'just'. Again, we have no evidence to say whether there is a purpose behind emergence and evolution, unless we consider the results (and what is still to come) to be self-evident.

>>8592312
Your brain consumes 20% of your calories yet is only 2% of your mass. I'm not saying more brainpower is ALWAYS inferior, just saying evolution certainly does not strive towards it. It is more likely that adaptations will be anatomical wherever possible because that is more calorie-efficient.

I don't THINK evolution is real. I KNOW it.

>It's a physicist thinks he understands evolution episode
>Jonathan Tooker studies physics at Georgia State University and graduated magna cum laude. Due to his superior research character, outstanding core GPA, excellent recommendations and standardized test scores, Georgia Tech offered him the presitgious President's Fellowship. This is the highest award Georgia Tech gives to incoming graduate students. Jonathan accepted the fellowship and earned a master's degree in physics in 2010.

>>8591699
Shit we should write a paper in vixra

File: IMG_2297.png (235KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 750x1334px

First page he used a screenshot of a google image search on junk DNA to prove...something?

>>8592344
>>8592352
In b4 philosophy. Nooooooooo.....

>>8592344
>>8592344
But purpose is subjective. It suggests intentionality and agency. There is no need to suggest purpose in evolution unless you give it agency in the sense of god. By the nature of it you cant falsify purpise. And it isnt a big just. Just without certain properties a biological system cannot exist. That is why these things are incidental.

>>8592350
Also though the brain is tued to anatomy inherently whether that be in a sensory or cognitive sense. All anatomical changes entail brain change.

>>8592370
Everything you say is true, except I find it difficult to ascribe sentience to the same emergent processes which developed limbs or lungs or brains. I mean, it obviously is in a physical evolutionary sense, our brains got bigger, fire, cooked food, etc, but for me it is a game changer in considering purpose. Suddenly this thing called 'life', which for some reason has a drive to replicate itself and evolve to fill its environs, having become extremely efficient at that over billions of years, throws up this aberration; a very small number of lifeforms over a handful of humanoid species become self-aware. Suddenly, the universe becomes capable of considering itself.

>>8592398
Sentience is our brains though! And self-awareness is present in some sense across many many species. Its not special, its even necessary. Anything that makes and can learn complex movements through space needs atleast rudimentary self awareness. Sociality requires self awareness. Monitoring internal states for homeostatic or allostatic needs is a form of it; something all animals do when they are hungry. It doesnt need to be special compared to other phenotypes.

>>8591226
Darwin addresses this in chapter six of OTOOS

>>8591284
chapter five

weird, it's almost like these theory-destroying concerns and counterpoints were addressed and demolished 150 years ago

maybe y'all should read darwin

>>8592451
What did he say

No, I think Evolution, as I think most see it, is false. Though there might be a god and that god a turtle. Turtles might be in control. We may be some kid's computer experiment on a world beyond our imagination. Logic says there is no way to prove a positive or a negative: only to be the positive, and not care of something irrelevant as would be negative. So I present this only as my opinion. I cannot be wrong as the people who predict/profess stuff. Uncertainty is to be open-minded to all possibility.

As if anyone can tell how old rocks are by carbon dating. Carbon decay rate would likely differ across billions of years and it's not as if anyone was around, if true, to check and verify. Besides, tech/mech/printers/sw/people make mistakes all the time: and usually it's when no one can possibly calculate the result by hand to check. And lots of people, desperate for "science" funding at any cost, make up stuff, bs and lie.

Space and time as imagined concepts (as nothing is a concept): Now this is reasonable because it includes feelings, which most guys deny in their analysis. Cold, brutal logic does not provide any answer but despair, pain and death; to be without purpose and meaning.

>>8592475

idk, i've never read darwin

>>8592475
Read the book, you lazy faggot

>>8592537
Cannot be good? Maybe its actually better to be open to the possibility of being wrong. There we get advancements.

>>8592560
Have you read it?

>>8592537
People desperate for the bible to be right dont either?

>>8592418
Yes kind of but: the philosopher Roy Bhaskar talked about emergent levels in the sciences, i.e. physics gives rise to chemistry but chemistry can't be explained by physics, chemistry gives rise to biology but biology can't be explained by it, etc. I take your point about the lower sentience present in some animals, but I would suggest that the development of fully self-aware consciousness is a new level of function. We are not only able to self-manage as you suggest, but we are able to consider meaning beyond ourselves, abstractions, and bring that perception to the universe itself. What is the evolutionary advantage in asking 'who made me' or 'is there life on Mars'. Or it's just incidental, that this universe came into being, then developed consciousness which can question itself and its origins.

>>8591231
The devolution of an evolution discussion: talking about animals (flies) that land and walk on poo. The rest of the animals get their nose right down into p (ammonia) and poo (e.coli), eating by assimilating the odor.

Obviously a discussion on evolution need be limited to civilized people (intelligent people) and their progress. The simple masses must be excluded.

>>8592575
So nothing contains within itself the reason for its own existence.

Hence the need for God to kick things off, God being eternal.

This forum is autistic and has given me cancer.

>>8592575
>>8592575
Why is it new. Look at brains of lower mammals. There are no big qualitative differences. It suggests continuum. And what you say could have been biproducts. I can see alot of survival in our ability to think abstractlt; make causal inferences, make tools, create complex long term plans, live in strong effective social groups. Language too. They are the same processes that allow us to ask those questions which by themselves dont necessarily need survival value if they are biproducts. And remember nothing objectively has survival value. Its context dependent.

>>8592575
Consciousness for me is just the natural extension of perception needed to make adjustments to survive. It neednt be a black box.

>>8592562

jokes aside i'm in the process of reading it for the first time

it's honestly incredibly how so many things he had only a vague or non-existent conception of (mendelian inheritance, ecological niches) have been corroborated by modern biology. He drew on hypotheses that we're only just now realizing were correct that we believed were erroneous for the entire 20th century, namely Lemarckian blending occurring via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.

Read at least Origin of Species so you can know what he actually says. He did good science, which may I mention is the unifying theory of all life sciences.