Proving "God" is real..

crazyhazey

Well-Known Member
if there was a god, why would people be suffering all around the world. hes a figment of your imagination, this "faith" you call is just a sign that you've lost hope or cannot operate without the feeling of some sort of company, a sort of co-dependence with an imaginary friend. religions find ways to make this part of your mind more susceptible to their lies, they'll try to traumatize into their beliefs by telling you that by not acknowledging your imaginary friend(god, jesus, allah, who gives a fuck) you may be sentenced to eternity in a fire pit.
 

Chief Walkin Eagle

Well-Known Member
Obviously the pronoun was used for the sake of expression. I am prepared to accept that God could be either gender or completely without. Curious that my choice of grammar causes you to drop the whole issue, and convenient that this allows you to avoid the challenge of my words.
OOO the challenge of your words xD give it up man, God will never be proven to you because you will discredit any fact as spiritual mumbo jumbo, Im sorry my friend, if you want God to be proven to you, you're gunna have to read what you consider to be spiritual mumbo jumbo. If you want to start somewhere that you think is rational, try looking up Graham Hancock and his evidence of a super advanced race that existed in ancient times but was wiped out from the face of the earth, probably the same race that built the amazing architectural wonder that is the Great Pyramids. And the advanced civilization that he speaks of believed there was a life after death, a 100000 year old civilization that had knowledge of the metric system and the speed of light, the speed of light is encoded int eh pyramids, the layout of the pyramids and the sphinx matches exactly with the Fibonacci Spiral... But SURELY that race that had advance knowledge of the universe were foolish because they believed in fantasy ... You act like for something to exist it has to be rationally explained by our primitive minds... There was a time where we didnt question these obvious things, but we are a species with amnesia and forgotten everything.

Not saying the Pyramids are 100000 years old, they were built in 10500 BC. Theres just evidence saying that the civilization could be as old as 100000 years.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Atheists idea of God is still a magical man in the sky dictating the world to his plan, thinking that is just as primitive as christians... So of course you wont be able to convince them of anything spiritual because when they think God they think fairy tale
An atheist is one that does not accept the claim that a god exists. Of course it is left up to the person making the claim to define "god." It is certainly possible that you can define god in such a way that an atheist can accept it, the problem then is merely semantics. Much of the discussion in forums about religion rely on the description of god given to us by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Those 'gods' are easy to deny as they are full of logical contradictions. If you personally believe there is a god that is not usually discussed, it is up to you to present your case and give a definition of what god is. To merely hand wave at atheists because they are often arguing against Christians is being unfair.


Generally, any god is usually considered a transcendent being that was the prime force behind the creation of the universe. Even though this can be far removed from the traditional Judeo-Christian deity, I would still be asking you to provide evidence. Rational thought and empirical evidence has shown me that organization and complexity can arise from very simple forms naturally. All I need are some fundamental forces and something to work with. Intelligent agency is not required. You are free to believe otherwise but without actual evidence, it is all speculation.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
OOO the challenge of your words xD give it up man, God will never be proven to you because you will discredit any fact as spiritual mumbo jumbo, Im sorry my friend, if you want God to be proven to you, you're gunna have to read what you consider to be spiritual mumbo jumbo. If you want to start somewhere that you think is rational, try looking up Graham Hancock and his evidence of a super advanced race that existed in ancient times but was wiped out from the face of the earth, probably the same race that built the amazing architectural wonder that is the Great Pyramids. And the advanced civilization that he speaks of believed there was a life after death, a 100000 year old civilization that had knowledge of the metric system and the speed of light, the speed of light is encoded int eh pyramids, the layout of the pyramids and the sphinx matches exactly with the Fibonacci Spiral... But SURELY that race that had advance knowledge of the universe were foolish because they believed in fantasy ... You act like for something to exist it has to be rationally explained by our primitive minds... There was a time where we didnt question these obvious things, but we are a species with amnesia and forgotten everything.

Not saying the Pyramids are 100000 years old, they were built in 10500 BC. Theres just evidence saying that the civilization could be as old as 100000 years.
Link to the bolded please? cn
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
An unimaginable period of trial and error with survival as the selector.
the theories of Darwinian evolution have all but been disproved . . . .i thought . . .. that random chance mutations have been proven to have been respsonsible fot eh evolution of a species as well as the de evolution and extinction of species . .. as environment and climate change . . i do not believe in God . . but i do belive in the design , there are constant reoccurring fractals in nature . . . . .life is more and more being describe with mathematics . .. . . . . .and belive in its inherent design within the system that is life an evolution . . . . . .evidence of symmetry throughout the universe is not proof of a architect

but it does make you wonder is life just as self perpetuating as we are told or is it like a elaborate dominoes set up with some lines growing and others ending but all within the design . . .

idk

i spent a lot of time om mushrooms thinking about lifes design . . and trying to disprove god, with logic vs ideologies . . . . . .i couldn't do it . .. .all philosophical thoughts i ended on were the result of a mind set that there is no god,, any logic should have the same ending no matter where you start . . . .. as long as reason vs passion is your guide
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
the theories of Darwinian evolution have all but been disproved . . . .i thought . . .. that random chance mutations have been proven to have been respsonsible fot eh evolution of a species as well as the de evolution and extinction of species . .. as environment and climate change . . i do not believe in God . . but i do belive in the design , there are constant reoccurring fractals in nature . . . . .life is more and more being describe with mathematics . .. . . . . .and belive in its inherent design within the system that is life an evolution . . . . . .evidence of symmetry throughout the universe is not proof of a architect

but it does make you wonder is life just as self perpetuating as we are told or is it like a elaborate dominoes set up with some lines growing and others ending but all within the design . . .

idk

i spent a lot of time om mushrooms thinking about lifes design . . and trying to disprove god, with logic vs ideologies . . . . . .i couldn't do it . .. .all philosophical thoughts i ended on were the result of a mind set that there is no god,, any logic should have the same ending no matter where you start . . . .. as long as reason vs passion is your guide
I was under the impression that Darwin's theory has withstood every challenge tossed at it. If you have info otherwise, I'd appreciate a link. cn
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
the most recent work on evolution suggest that chance mutation in our genetics is what progressed the "winning" species onto the top spot in the food chain

and it throws all the elitest mentality out the window, about survival of the fitest . . .. . bunch of BS

its just plain survival and probability . . . . . . . .with enough open genetics floating around in our genes the possibilities are endless when of comes to genetics variance and how it effects our evolution

also society and environment can dictate what genes sought after and passed on . . .. nothing to do with survival of the fittest if you look like a famous person and have many chances of passing your genetic material on . . . .just a example

in the end the people breeding the most are not the world most gifted or intelligent or strong or evolved . . . .they are what is popular or available. .. . .and through the mixing of genetics

genetic expression of mutations/variance will be expressed . . . .. . . its science or math . . .or probability maybe all of em
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
the theories of Darwinian evolution have all but been disproved . . . .i thought . . ..
You thought wrong. You have been duped by the religious fundies that discontinued "scientific creationism" for intelligent design due to legal reasons. Life always appeared to be designed, Darwin was the first person that gave us a testable mechanism of how life can evolve with the "appearance" of design.

that random chance mutations have been proven to have been respsonsible fot eh evolution of a species as well as the de evolution and extinction of species . .. as environment and climate change . . i do not believe in God . . but i do belive in the design , there are constant reoccurring fractals in nature . . . . .life is more and more being describe with mathematics . .. . . . . .and belive in its inherent design within the system that is life an evolution . . . . . .evidence of symmetry throughout the universe is not proof of a architect
Darwin gave us descent with modification. Random mutation is a small part of evolutionary change. Too many people focus of this random process and ignore the power of cumulative selection and deep time. Its sort of like if you had 10 dice and wanted to get all sixes. If you rolled all ten each time, it will take a long time for you to roll 10 sixes. However, if after each roll, you can keep the ones that landed six and rolled only the remaining ones, you will reach 10 sixes much quicker, by a factor of more than a million! Life keeps the things that work and build upon those. We didn't even get differentiated multicellular life for billions of years after life began but once that template became successful, many new 'designs' could be tried and then selection could build on those, and so on.
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
please read the rest and actually look up what im talking about . . . i dont believe in creation theory

thats the thing is its not a small part . . . .. . look up the most recent reasrch into the study of the changes of bones in our bodies throughout tiime. . you willl find what im referign too\

and genetics are not a dice to be kept and never changed . . . .we are all connected and its ever changing . . . . . . .. can you lamen that up for me im a little foggy right now

how do the dice connect with the exchange of genes over time with in a large global population


genetic variation made us better equipped and survival of the fittest is just a symptom of that . . .but now that most peoples life gets to a old age, survival of the fittest doesnt describe the reason one genes expression is more desirable or attractive then another, its the possible genetics expression that is new and unknown or beneficial . . .and are mutations within our genes vs breed traits . . . .. we have evolved away from what makes animals evolve . . . .and in my opinion a long time ago too
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
please read the rest and actually look up what im talking about . . . i dont believe in creation theory

thats the thing is its not a small part . . . .. . look up the most recent [research] into the study of the changes of bones in our bodies throughout time. . you willl find what im referign too\

and genetics are not a dice to be kept and never changed . . . .we are all connected and its ever changing . . . . . . .. can you lamen that up for me im a little foggy right now

how do the dice connect with the exchange of genes over time with in a large global population


genetic variation made us better equipped and survival of the fittest is just a symptom of that . . .but now that most peoples life gets to a old age, survival of the fittest doesnt describe the reason one genes expression is more desirable or attractive then another, its the possible genetics expression that is new and unknown or beneficial . . .and are mutations without our genes vs breed traits . . . .. we have evolved away from what makes animals evolve . . . .and in my opinion a long time ago too
Link please! cn
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
please read the rest and actually look up what im talking about . . . i dont believe in creation theory

thats the thing is its not a small part . . . .. . look up the most recent reasrch into the study of the changes of bones in our bodies throughout tiime. . you willl find what im referign too\

and genetics are not a dice to be kept and never changed . . . .we are all connected and its ever changing . . . . . . .. can you lamen that up for me im a little foggy right now

how do the dice connect with the exchange of genes over time with in a large global population


genetic variation made us better equipped and survival of the fittest is just a symptom of that . . .but now that most peoples life gets to a old age, survival of the fittest doesnt describe the reason one genes expression is more desirable or attractive then another, its the possible genetics expression that is new and unknown or beneficial . . .and are mutations without our genes vs breed traits . . . .. we have evolved away from what makes animals evolve . . . .and in my opinion a long time ago too
Dude, you realize you're arguing with a guy who's avatar is young Charles Darwin, right? Is what you're saying your opinion or facts? If they are facts, please provide some links...
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
is that the logic you use to reason why he is right? come on

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/272/5269/1802.short
http://130.225.75.199/staff/dave/genomics_course/ElenaLenski2003.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=htJHI1UrL7IC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=evolution+caused+by+genetic+mutations&ots=fyo_2JUAjV&sig=qCh3EnsqPcSE-0ipMROr6UXks1k#v=onepage&q=evolution caused by genetic mutations&f=false
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2409017?uid=3739960&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698892693237

genetic algorithms are interesting

ok bone up follks . .. . im not saying its true but iam saying that a thoery is just that

somthing that is true can be repeated and should work to an end with any variables plugged into it . . . . modern peoples genetics are not surviving from being the fittest

example the laws governing quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity should be able to be linked together as one change have a equal or opposite reaction within each respective enviroment

it is a popularity game and has nothing to do with darwin theory . . . . idk maybe i havent read enough of darwins theory
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
please read the rest and actually look up what im talking about . . . i dont believe in creation theory
I never said you did. You did say you believe in intelligent design and that's all I was discussing
thats the thing is its not a small part . . . .. . look up the most recent reasrch into the study of the changes of bones in our bodies throughout tiime. . you willl find what im referign too\

and genetics are not a dice to be kept and never changed . . . .we are all connected and its ever changing . . . . . . .. can you lamen that up for me im a little foggy right now

how do the dice connect with the exchange of genes over time with in a large global population


genetic variation made us better equipped and survival of the fittest is just a symptom of that . . .but now that most peoples life gets to a old age, survival of the fittest doesnt describe the reason one genes expression is more desirable or attractive then another, its the possible genetics expression that is new and unknown or beneficial . . .and are mutations within our genes vs breed traits . . . .. we have evolved away from what makes animals evolve . . . .and in my opinion a long time ago too
Why do you keep referring to "survival of the fittest" as being wrong then give examples of gene survival? My comment to you was about biological evolution and countering your claim that Darwin has been disproven. If you want to discuss only the evolution of modern man, I would probably agree that to a great extent, biological evolution has taken a back seat to technological evolution. Humans can live comfortably in the northern regions without a higher genetic tolerance for cold because of clothing, shelter and powered heating. We are demonstrating we can even survive in space, although not without complications. None of that disproves what Darwin's insight revealed. Just because biological evolution doesn't progress rapidly in one species because of their ability to override innate desires with conscious thought, does nothing to show that Darwin was wrong.
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
you can describe the path of a river as flowing or eroding its way though the land . . .one is vague and easy to think about the other is complex and has many factors involved survival of the fittest is a vague generalization of what is actually happening . . of course what genes that get spread or surviving but it has nothing to do with the fittest . . . . .id go as far to say that fittest is about as wrong a word to decribe it as possible more like dominate genes . . . . .until a better genetic mutation happens and then thats the dominate genes . . .. but its the genetic variation and mutations that drive the trends not the fact that one gene is dominate vs recessive

the change that will always happens is random

the factors of enviroemnt are no longer the leading cuase of death and imo have zero effects on what genes are passed onthrough generations now

as far as darwin being disproved . . .. .i guess not but it is still a theory and hasnt been proven either and with almost 200 years of people tryingto prove it

genetic mutation and variation . . . . .. makes more sense, when using a theory to describe evolution, in the past and in the future and present

as it can make sense of all genetics variations in people animals plants . . . . and so forth . . .that yes "the winning" genes with be passed on but that they happen though genetic variation and probability vs who produced the most copies of there genes to spread . . . .. .have you read any of the articles i sited?

read this one first genetic algorithms http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=htJHI1UrL7IC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=evolution+caused+by+genetic+mutations&ots=fyo_2JUAjV&sig=qCh3EnsqPcSE-0ipMROr6UXks1k#v=onepage&q=evolution caused by genetic mutations&f=false

remember life is math very complex math, its all math the universial language . . and it should all work out from equation to proof to answer

man i need to work on my spelling and proof reading, which i never do, it must be hard to take me at face value when i cant spell a thing
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
OOO the challenge of your words xD give it up man, God will never be proven to you because you will discredit any fact as spiritual mumbo jumbo, Im sorry my friend, if you want God to be proven to you, you're gunna have to read what you consider to be spiritual mumbo jumbo.
I've said nothing about proving god to me. You asserted that the evidence for god is there to see if we look past our idea of mythical magical beings. I challenged this assertion by pointing out that the standards of evidence skeptical atheists apply to god is the same any reasonable person applies to any other area of knowledge. You answered this challenge with "im done".


If you want to start somewhere that you think is rational, try looking up Graham Hancock and his evidence of a super advanced race that existed in ancient times but was wiped out from the face of the earth, probably the same race that built the amazing architectural wonder that is the Great Pyramids. And the advanced civilization that he speaks of believed there was a life after death, a 100000 year old civilization that had knowledge of the metric system and the speed of light, the speed of light is encoded int eh pyramids, the layout of the pyramids and the sphinx matches exactly with the Fibonacci Spiral... But SURELY that race that had advance knowledge of the universe were foolish because they believed in fantasy ...
I'll leave it to others to vet these statements, as they have already begun to do. None of this has any bearing on the standards of evidence I was appealing to.

You act like for something to exist it has to be rationally explained by our primitive minds... There was a time where we didnt question these obvious things, but we are a species with amnesia and forgotten everything.
I believe dark matter exists despite it having a clear rational explanation, because the argument and it's evidence is sufficient to be convincing.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
you can describe the path of a river as flowing or eroding its way though the land . . .one is vague and easy to think about the other is complex and has many factors involved survival of the fittest is a vague generalization of what is actually happening . . of course what genes that get spread or surviving but it has nothing to do with the fittest . . . . .id go as far to say that fittest is about as wrong a word to decribe it as possible more like dominate genes . . . . .until a better genetic mutation happens and then thats the dominate genes . . .. but its the genetic variation and mutations that drive the trends not the fact that one gene is dominate vs recessive

the change that will always happens is random

the factors of enviroemnt are no longer the leading cuase of death and imo have zero effects on what genes are passed onthrough generations now

as far as darwin being disproved . . .. .i guess not but it is still a thoery and hasnt been proven either and with almost 200 years of people tryingto prove it

genetic mutation and variation . . . . .. makes more sense, when using a thoery to desrcibe evolution, in the past and in the future and present

as it can make sense of all genetics variations in people animals plants . . . . and so forth . . .that yes "the winning" genes with be passed on but that they happen though genetic variation and probability vs who produced the most copies of there genes to spread . . . .. .have you read any of the articles i sited?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Darwin didn't even coin the term "survival of the fittest." That was done by someone that read Darwin. Darwin used the term natural selection. Fitness is a relative term and applies to being able to be successful in the particular situation a gene finds itself. Alleles that get passed down more often than it's counterpart is considered fit, no matter why it is more successful. Many genes are successful because they are closely linked with other successful genes, e.g the genes that can help an animal digest raw meat is going to be more successful in the body of a carnivorous predator than that of an herbivore. No one is disputing randomness plays a role. Genes are shuffled randomly in meiosis producing haploid cells, germ cells can be changed by mutation caused by outside forces like cosmic rays and other radiation.

Genetic variation is a fundamental part of modern evolutionary synthesis but remember, Darwin came up with the idea that organisms have to have some method of heredity in order for his theory to be true. He said this in spite of not having access to Mendel's work. Genetics confirmed Darwin's hypothesis. 150 years of science have continually confirmed Darwin with not a single case has falsified his major ideas. Saying that it has never been proven and is still a theory tells me you don't understand how science works. Theories can only be disproven and being that they are merely models of reality, they will never be proven either. That's like saying atomic theory has never been proven even though we have witnessed atomic bombs and microchips. Not being proven is inconsequential to whether or not Darwin gave us a good model.

If you don't believe the force behind evolution has to do with the environment a gene pool finds itself means you haven't done enough research. Mutation, variation and randomness are necessary components but they provide no force or direction. Without the environment to weed out bad combinations and promote good ones, we wouldn't have any progress, just a bunch of genes randomly rearranging never gaining any direction. You might consider to expand your definition of environment because in evolutionary theory, means much more than just living condition. As I alluded to before, the environment for an individual gene includes other genes and the entire organism it shares with them.
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
im not gonna paraphrase this one as i do not feel like correting all the words id mis spell. im not a crook!

"
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon that is generally accepted as being true because it is based on large amounts of empirical evidence.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories have been tested and verified and are general accepted by scientists beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory: "

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Darwin didn't even coin the term "survival of the fittest." That was done by someone that read Darwin. Darwin used the term natural selection. Fitness is a relative term and applies to being able to be successful in the particular situation a gene finds itself. Alleles that get passed down more often than it's counterpart is considered fit, no matter why it is more successful. Many genes are successful because they are closely linked with other successful genes, e.g the genes that can help an animal digest raw meat is going to be more successful in the body of a carnivorous predator than that of an herbivore. No one is disputing randomness plays a role. Genes are shuffled randomly in meiosis producing haploid cells, germ cells can be changed by mutation caused by outside forces like cosmic rays and other radiation.

Genetic variation is a fundamental part of modern evolutionary synthesis but remember, Darwin came up with the idea that organisms have to have some method of heredity in order for his theory to be true. He said this in spite of not having access to Mendel's work. Genetics confirmed Darwin's hypothesis. 150 years of science have continually confirmed Darwin with not a single case has falsified his major ideas. Saying that it has never been proven and is still a theory tells me you don't understand how science works. Theories can only be disproven and being that they are merely models of reality, they will never be proven either. That's like saying atomic theory has never been proven even though we have witnessed atomic bombs and microchips. Not being proven is inconsequential to whether or not Darwin gave us a good model.

If you don't believe the force behind evolution has to do with the environment a gene pool finds itself means you haven't done enough research. Mutation, variation and randomness are necessary components but they provide no force or direction. Without the environment to weed out bad combinations and promote good ones, we wouldn't have any progress, just a bunch of genes randomly rearranging never gaining any direction. You might consider to expand your definition of environment because in evolutionary theory, means much more than just living condition. As I alluded to before, the environment for an individual gene includes other genes and the entire organism it shares with them.
well ill just have to dis agree with ya on that . .. . . darwins theory of evolutoin has evolved my friend and has become more comprehensive to the factors that dictate change . . . and those factors imo have een shown to be random beneficial changes that survive, genetic mutations are hereditary but it is not inherent that the mutation will happen just because the same set of genes is passed on . . . . . . . . . . .how do you explain the guy in india that can effectively channel enough voltage through his body to power a 220v hot plat and cook a egg

or the incredible feats of people who can trigger all there muscle fibers to fire at one moment and have incredible strength for a breif time . .. . . its is random that these things can happen and not hereditary

or the guy who doesnt get cold in the arctic . . . . i forget what they figured what was going on but some genetic variation made it possible not a hereditary dominate or recessive gene passed on as that is a random mix from genetic pools of parents/ancestors idk

good talk though

i like your style




. .have you read any of the articles that i sited . . . .. .
 

InfidelUniversity

Active Member
I heard we have a genetic fuck up in our DNA. It makes our jaw muscles smaller which allowed our brains to get bigger.......Freaky eh?

Man, you all can debate, much props!!!!.......
 
Top