2. All phenomena that can't find a home in the view, just say things like, "It's okay to say, "I don't know"" or ". working on the solution."
3. Line up different kinds of skulls in order from similarity to dissimilarity and claim you're observing evolution.
4. Make it sound like the only reason similar bodies would have similar DNA is because of common ancestry even though we know CGI characters would have more similar code the closer their builds were.
5. If the origin of a phenomenon can't be explained, such as instincts, just say "it was beneficial to survival" and pretend that somehow answered for the problem.
The untenable nature of the Theory of Evolution
Evolution is a good theory if we have a large enough carpet to sweep uncomfortable facts under it. The untenable nature of the Theory of Evolution can be fleshed out. When one understands that the objective nature of the spacetime dimension is information and that it's found in the non-spacial, atemporal state, it becomes clear that all organism bodies must be predefined and can't be produced by a morphological process. When one realizes what is required in organ construction, the theory falls. According to the theory, each new trait starts out with its first mutation. This mutation, if not a fully developed organ, would necessarily be a useless mutation. In order for this to be used in organ construction it must be kept regardless of its lack of use so that it can be on stand-by for the next necessary part in organ construction. The odds of a random mutation appearing to fulfill this role is beyond a credible consideration. This goes for every organ ever constructed. Just think how many random mutations it would take to build a functioning organ. The Theory has no answer for the presence of instinct. Every unique organism has a built in understanding of how to live as its parent did. Spiders know how to spin webs, beavers know how to build damns, birds know how to know how to build nests, etc. Animal features said to have evolved, when this is reflected upon, causes one to stumble intellectually. When considering the flight feather (an engineered masterpiece by its own right), think how incredible it is that it was evolving this feature on animal bodies that it could in no way know the body it was evolving on had flight capability. Finally, we are told that evolution is the cause of organism migration from a water environment to a land environment. When considering that the evolutionary cause of adaption is environmental pressures, it becomes comical contemplating the absurdity that a water environment could pressure water living animals to adapt to a life on land.
Physical reality is created by our brains. To say that our brains were the result of evolution is the same thing as saying an effect can cause its own cause. Evolutionary theory can be falsified if the body is found to be designed for a simulated reality and not a real 'stuff is really stuff' reality. The body, when examined, is found to be exactly that, a functioning reality simulator. All physical pain that we feel is not physical pain at all. That pain is manufactured in the brain to convince us that there is pain in our toe when we stub it. The body is the one that causes the three dimensional, perceptually dependent reality. This not-actually-real reality cannot produce a body to produce the reality to produce this body.
Joshua Read: dude there are specific emetic markers like merged chromosomes etc.
Steven Wright: And? How is that not able to be a result of mathematical recombining?
Joshua Read: so common ancestry can be determined when we see the exact same merges chromosome in a species we expect to be related via other evidence
Steven Wright: It's an assumption. I can understand why it would lead to accepting the hypothesis.
Joshua Read: no it’s not. The evidence points to a common ancestor, we also find this very specific marker where two chromosomes merged in both species. There is literally no chance this same mutation occurred twice in two species at different times in the exact same way with the exact same two chromosomes Steven Wright: If you build similar CGI structures, they'll also have similar markers in the code.
Joshua Read: no you won’t. Two chromosomes merging is a big event, you simply won’t see it happen twice in the same way
Steven Wright: But you'll see the eye for vision reinvented hundreds of thousands of times.
Joshua Read: only in environments with light, things that live in darkness don’t because it doesn’t aid survival
Steven Wright: So every time there's a need, mutations just happen to step up to the plate and save the day?
Joshua Read: no, but mutations that aid survival are past on to offspring while negatives ones are not usually past on, simply because they don’t survive. An organism that develops the ability to see, can find food easier than those without. So they reproduce. For example
Steven Wright: Okay, how many organ traits are passed on before the organ being put together becomes functioning?
Joshua Read: depends on which trait is developing. It could take many generations before a functioning organ or formed
Steven Wright: There's no reason to pass on traits that can't function yet.
Joshua Read: they don’t need a reason. If they reproduce they pass it on. So a mutation that doesn’t do anything doesn’t aid survival but also isn’t detrimental to survival, so can still be passed on
Steven Wright: They don't need a reason. They just send nonsense for generations and the nonsense ends up pulling together as a functioning organ. What part of the liver before it functioned, was beneficial in other ways?
Joshua Read: mutations are random. They don’t always do anything. If they are negative traits they wont survive as well and don’t pass it on, because death. If they do nothing, there is nothing stopping passing it on because the mutation isn’t harmful to survival. If it’s beneficial it will be more likely to pass on because they are thriving. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Steven Wright: non sequitur
Joshua Read: again it didn’t need to be. But likely an organism has a primitive form of a filtration system and over generations or evolved into what we know as the liver. it’s not a non sequitor at all
Steven Wright: What stage of the heart signaled a need for a not-yet-evolved heart valve, and then another one?
Joshua Read: again likely began as a primitive form o circulatory system and evolved into a more complex one. likely an organism has a primitive form of a filtration system and over generations or evolved into what we know as the liver"
Steven Wright: That's a nice story. How does that story differ from other stories that can't be confirmed?
Joshua Read: so you’re saying that despite us knowing the mechanisms by which these things happen, and having ample evidence for evolutionary change, you thinks it’s unproven unless I can answer how every organ developed step by step?
Steven Wright: It's an easy idea to narrate. I'd like to see the actual mechanics described step-by-step, beginning to end. It can be falsified that way if going down that road it finds dead ends.
Joshua Read: there are 3 different mutations that can occur. Changes can be beneficial, neutral, or negative. Beneficial changes are passed on more often than others due to aiding survival and increasing reproductive opportunity. That is evolution.
Steven Wright: Not according to changes in the human being over the last 10,000 years. Most of them made us more vulnerable to disease. I haven't even heard what a single positive change took place in that time.
Joshua Read: I don’t have to explain how every single organ in every species to have ever existed formed in order to prove change over time via evolution.
Steven Wright: Even a single one would be fine. You can even do a feather instead.
Joshua Read: there are many examples of mutations over that time. Green and blue eyes, red hair, those are mutations
Steven Wright: That's interesting. When did a new color show up in the population?
Joshua Read: A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes. 'Originally, we all had brown eyes,' said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen. Steven Wright: How was that claim determined to be factual?
Joshua Read: the genetic marker. We can roughly determine it via which populations that left Africa does or not have it. it just sounds like you think you know better than every geneticist
Steven Wright: Okay, that evidence is also something to be expected in the mathematical model of reality. The model most supported by quantum mechanics.
Joshua Read: what mathematical model of reality? It’s basic logic, humans left Africa, if it’s only seen in those that left, then it happened after they left
Steven Wright: I don't care about me. I like to determine what I'm taught is the truth. How can you fault me for preferring a model that conforms more to the evidence?
Joshua Read: what model? How do you explain this genetic change appearing?
Steven Wright: You don't know that relative phenomena is perceptually dependent (Special Relativity)?
Joshua Read: what does special relativity have to do with a genetic variation appearing in a species?
Steven Wright: Special relativity describes the non-absolute nature of mass, distance, time and velocity. If it isn't actual phenomena, the whole house of cards comes down. Trait variation can take place with the use of variables in the math. Length, width, height, color, and thickness can have different values if defined conditions are met. Microevolution is mathematically sound. The nervous system is an information highway that brings the universe in its information state to the brain so that it can be represented in a dimensional form conducive to a spacetime reality which means the one perceiving this reality (us) precedes the universe that evolution said produced us.
Joshua Read: it’s the relationship between space and time. Again how if that relevant to a genetic variation appearing in a species?
Steven Wright: Right. You need linear time to be absolute to calculate the universe's age, right? If it's just a particular pov, it's not going to make your model work. Can you understand the description I made of the math model?
Joshua Read: nope, it’s just relative is all. I know what special relativity is, I don’t see how that relates to evolution at all though
Steven Wright: Can one pov be right if that pov is where time stops and space shrinks to zero? Describe your model from that pov.
Joshua Read: it’s relative. So if you’re in a high gravity/ slow time area, it’s only slow relatively, time passes the same for you, while outside would appear fast to you. So you would appear slow to others outside
Steven Wright: You didn't describe your model from the pov of c (which is as justified as any other pov). My model has no problem with it.
Joshua Read: again it’s relative. Do you not know what that means?
Steven Wright: So you won't oblige me because...
Joshua Read: from the outside it looks slow inside. From the inside it looks fast outside. what other POV?
Steven Wright: Listen. If there is no time and no space, everything is static, including all the species from beginning to end. That means the whole story is stored on a disc and you have to play it to see it play out. It's digital bits, not actors and movie sets.
Joshua Read: no time, yes static. No space means there can’t be things, as things take up space
Steven Wright: at the constant where infinite mass exists (undefined), the potential state (or the speed of light).
Joshua Read: infinite time exists too, time just exponentially slows as mass exponentially increases.
Steven Wright: information (waves) have no spacial extent.
Joshua Read: but that’s local, relativity says that this could happen and outside that infinite mass time passes normally
Steven Wright: Infinite time is undefined (no units).
Joshua Read: k. But we have a universe with space and time. Evolution happens in that. Even if time is just a subjective experience of a progress through a timeline, that timeline still exists.
Steven Wright: That wasn't my claim, my claim was that the pov at the constant destroys your model's chance of being the right one. If that pov is real, all phenomena is devoid of needing linear time or finite distances to exist.
Joshua Read: you don’t understand what you are taking about. None of this is related to evolution anyway. We have a universe, it has time. Evolution is change over time. There can be infinite mass areas with basically no time passing, but that’s relative, so time still passes for those outside the event. We don’t understand the true nature of time, it’s possible there any many timelines, but none of that negates evolution in any way
Steven Wright: "you don’t understand what you are taking about." Accusations without backup look like cries for help. If time can stop and space contract to a point and yet all of our reality is present, then everything has to be existing, beginning to end with no need of time or space to make it happen. That means species have to already been designed prior to any time period.
Joshua Read: time still passes outside of the infinite mass area dude. you have lost. You think that because there is an event where I finite mass Essentially stops time (relatively) that this means time doesn’t pass for everything outside the effected area? Well guess what, it does. That’s the relative part of relativity. even if space/time exists as a whole and time is just a subjective experience, what we call change over time still exists. It’s also possible multiple timelines exist. But again this doesn’t negate evolution
Steven Wright: Sure it does. As soon as you enter here in your reality simulator suit (the body), you start the movie and enjoy the ride.
Joshua Read: you dont enter it, you are it. And evolution happened in that timeline. Shifting the goalpost doesn’t change that, it still exists the same
Steven Wright: How did you determine that multiple time lines exist when Absolute Time is Now and you can't escape Now? You enter this world as an observer in an avatar. That means you can enter it now which could be 1000 years ago but still be now. The year doesn't change in a movie just because you watch it ten years from the first time you watched it. It only depends on the avatar you enter with.
Joshua Read: i didn’t claim there was. I said there could be, we simply don’t know. But regardless, evolution occurs over a timeline like everything else, so regardless of whether a timeline is predetermined, evolution happened I. The timeline as change over time. no you don’t, I was formed in this universe. you can’t just make up stuff dude. When you say “I” you are referring to a physical thing that exists inside the universe. You can’t just invent a being that inhabits a physical thing when it pleases, that’s just silly superstition
Steven Wright: So you won't be the departed when people are gathered around your dead body? We should stuff you and keep you around if you're still here.
Joshua Read: if I’m dead, the functions that make me who I am are no longer functioning. So only my body remains
Steven Wright: I'm not inventing. I'm taking away the definitions that haven't always been present. So are you the animation (function) or that which is being animated (body)?
Joshua Read: you are inventing something that isn’t subject to the laws of physics that can inhabit a body. That’s inventing shit
Steven Wright: Really. Tell me how limits are absolute.
Joshua Read: i am a body that has a mind, the mind is where my thoughts and feelings and experiences are processed. So what I call me is essentially a mind. never mentioned limits or absolutes. Next
Steven Wright: Okay, your thoughts have spacial extent? That's the only way to exist in a three dimensional reality. If you don't have a location here, you're not here. Your mind has no location here which confirms what I told you. You only observe here, you don't actually exist in a relative (non-absolute) reality.
Joshua Read: yes the brain forms physical pathways that represent things like my experiences and relate them to other things.
Steven Wright: Okay, how much room do you need to think about New York?
Joshua Read: my brain exists in physical space, it also requires time to function as electrical and chemical signals are subject to the passage of time. You assume this mind exists i dependent of this physical requirement but that’s just you making shit up again I don’t have the answer to that, but my brain needs to form a pathway that can be deactivated when I think about it, that’s how thinking works. It will also be connected to related things like how I feel about new york
Steven Wright: No. Our minds identify with our perceptions. You won't have the same mind once that identity gets cut off. No, I can support what I say. Ask for support before starting the bully routine.
Joshua Read: lmao do you hear yourself? So now the mind is independent of the brain?
Steven Wright: Anyway, we both stated our cases and I'm pleased with how you handled the conversation.
Joshua Read: prove the mind is independent from the brain, because all data we have on the mind is directly related to brain activity. don’t run away now. You’re on the ropes. Is the mind the result of the brain?
Steven Wright: Did I not tell you that the mind identifies with the perception factory (the brain)?
No comments:
Post a Comment