A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?

In summary, the conversation began with a discussion about genetically altering human beings and whether it goes against natural selection or is simply another form of it. The topic of self-guided evolution and the potential implications of artificial and man-made processes on what is considered "natural" were also brought up. The conversation then shifted to the concept of humans being "transplants" and the development of different races over the course of 10,000 years. The conversation also touched on the use of numbers and a timeline in relation to evolutionary theory, with some disagreement about its validity. Ultimately, the conversation highlighted the blurry line between what is considered "natural" and "artificial" and how human actions can impact the process of natural selection.
  • #36
Originally posted by Iacchus32
A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

What can I say? ...

Except life is capricious ... and I'm ornery. :wink:
That ...means...nothing to me whatsoever. *shrugs* what can I say?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by Another God
That ...means...nothing to me whatsoever. *shrugs* what can I say?
I think what the koan says is that both a spiritual and ojbective reality exist, but that the spiritual reality is not revealed by means of objective reality alone, but requires that it be revealed to you on a "personal level." In which case by raising the fly-whisk it would be pointless to try and explain.

In response to this what I'm saying is that I'm basically a whole person in my own right, and I'm not abouts to subject myself (involuntarily) to the scrutiny of someone else, who may or may not be able to determine this. Meaning, I've gone about as far as I can go in trying to explain my position here (which is spiritual), at least for now.

While another thing here is that you don't tend to hold on to things, be it intellectual or otherwise, and try and maintain your existence in "the moment." So there's not a whole lot of things to bring to the forefront, except through what you're able to discern through the here and now. Which, is as it should be. If we're going to speak about the things which address the nature of life, then they should be spoken from the standpoint of "being alive."
 
  • #38
In response to this what I'm saying is that I'm basically a whole person in my own right, and I'm not abouts to subject myself (involuntarily) to the scrutiny of someone else, who may or may not be able to determine this.
If you are not willing to accept scrutiny, then there is no point talking. You might as well chat with a wall.

Harsh... but true. Conversation is a two way process.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by FZ+
If you are not willing to accept scrutiny, then there is no point talking. You might as well chat with a wall.

Harsh... but true. Conversation is a two way process.
Actually I pretty much do, while I also feel like I have something to contribute. But, when it begins to sound like I'm repeating myself over and over again, and then someone says I haven't contributed anything so far, in any of my posts, and in effect I should start all over (under their scrutiny), then I have a problem with that, and I don't see any point in trying to continue further.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But, when it begins to sound like I'm repeating myself over and over again, and then someone says I haven't contributed anything so far, in any of my posts, and in effect I should start all over (under their scrutiny), then I have a problem with that, and I don't see any point in trying to continue further.
Maybe you should stop repeating yourself, and try to understand why they aren't understanding you/disagreeing with you. And then try to address that.

90% of Philosophical issues are actually just a matter of coming to the topic from different angles. We need to realign our angles so that we can figure out why we disagree.
 
  • #41
How does one prove that God exists? By presenting it in such a way that it allows the other person to prove it to himself. Just as with the Zen koan, this is the only way I know how to accomplish that.

Should this be accomplished through the means of what is rational and objective? Yes. Nonetheless, I can only speak to you about the nature of which you have to ultimately understand for yourself. Now is that that hard to "understand?" If you can acknowledge what I'm saying then yes, you can understand. :wink:

Neither am I asking you to accept God by any other means than this. But the key here is that it has to be born (realized) through one's understanding.

In fact I think enough evidence already exists, to where maybe all that's necessary is to gather it and prioritize it in such a way -- as a thesis -- to allow science to evaluate it "collectively" (as a shared experience), and at least allow for the "plausibility" that God exists. I only say this because in order to establish this, even for oneself, it does require logic and reason.

Whereas prior to the advancement of science, logic and reason were tools that were not readily available to the general populace, and people had to rely more on someone else's say so on things like the Bible. Although there are certain passages in the Bible that suggest the importance of understanding the Bible for oneself (below). While believe it or not this is probably why the Christian Church became established in Greece, because of its faculty to use logic and reason.


When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:13-18).
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:33-34).
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:4-5).
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Iacchus32
How does one prove that God exists? By presenting it in such a way that it allows the other person to prove it to himself. Just as with the Zen koan, this is the only way I know how to accomplish that.

Should this be accomplished through the means of what is rational and objective? Yes. Nonetheless, I can only speak to you about the nature of which you have to ultimately understand for yourself. Now is that that hard to "understand?" If you can acknowledge what I'm saying then yes, you can understand. :wink:

Neither am I asking you to accept God by any other means than this. But the key here is that it has to be born (realized) through one's understanding.

In fact I think enough evidence already exists, to where maybe all that's necessary is to gather it and prioritize it in such a way -- as a thesis -- to allow science to evaluate it "collectively" (as a shared experience), and at least allow for the "plausibility" that God exists. I only say this because in order to establish this, even for oneself, it does require logic and reason.

Whereas prior to the advancement of science, logic and reason were tools that were not readily available to the general populace, and people had to rely more on someone else's say so on things like the Bible. Although there are certain passages in the Bible that suggest the importance of understanding the Bible for oneself (below). While believe it or not this is probably why the Christian Church became established in Greece, because of its faculty to use logic and reason.

What does any of this have to do with natural selection?
 
  • #43
Originally posted by Zero
What does any of this have to do with natural selection?
That's a good question. Because the flaw is contingent upon the existence of a spiritual reality, and this is what seems to be holding everybody up at this point. And nobody seems to want to address this. In which case I'm explaining why I've gone about as far as I can go with it. :wink:
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Iacchus32
That's a good question. Because the flaw is contingent upon the existence of a spiritual reality, and this is what seems to be holding everybody up at this point. And nobody seems to want to address this. In which case I'm explaining why I've gone about as far as I can go with it. :wink:

In other words, you haven't found any flaw whatsoever..so why would you start a thread about a non-existant flaw?
 
  • #45
Originally posted by Zero
In other words, you haven't found any flaw whatsoever..so why would you start a thread about a non-existant flaw?
And why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Becasue you're already convinced, right? So what's the point in continuing any further?
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Becasue you're already convinced, right? So what's the point in continuing any further?
No, because you haven't presented a flaw in natural selection, and this thread has been going for days and days...eventually, you really should consider presenting an actual flaw.

There are flaws in natural selection, BTW, and modern scientists were the ones to find them, and modify the theory of evolution to take those flaws into account. In no way does me being 'convinced' have anything to do with your not presenting a flaw. Then again, your own flaw has been pointed out to you time and again, and you are completely blind to it.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Zero
No, because you haven't presented a flaw in natural selection, and this thread has been going for days and days...eventually, you really should consider presenting an actual flaw.

There are flaws in natural selection, BTW, and modern scientists were the ones to find them, and modify the theory of evolution to take those flaws into account. In no way does me being 'convinced' have anything to do with your not presenting a flaw. Then again, your own flaw has been pointed out to you time and again, and you are completely blind to it.
The only thing that I've presented is something that "you" are not willing to accept.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only thing that I've presented is something that "you" are not willing to accept.

You haven't presented ANYTHING that points to a flaw in natural selection, from a viewpoint that anyone with any logic can take seriously. It isn't about my 'bias', it is about simple logic. You cannot start from a 'what if?' and claim to have any knowledge. You start from solid observation, and work from there. For instance, if I say that meteorology is completely wrong, because it doesn't take into account what my mommy told me about thunder being caused by Greek Gods bowling, should I be taken seriously? What you have presented has exactly the same intellectual weight as what my mommy told me.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Zero
You haven't presented ANYTHING that points to a flaw in natural selection, from a viewpoint that anyone with any logic can take seriously. It isn't about my 'bias', it is about simple logic. You cannot start from a 'what if?' and claim to have any knowledge. You start from solid observation, and work from there. For instance, if I say that meteorology is completely wrong, because it doesn't take into account what my mommy told me about thunder being caused by Greek Gods bowling, should I be taken seriously? What you have presented has exactly the same intellectual weight as what my mommy told me.
From the thread, Why the bias against materialism? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Zero
Again, you jump from "I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you?" all the way to "If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words" without any rhyme or reason!

By teh way, in case you didn't read the last time I said it, your existence is on;y proof of your existence, nothing else. Can you address that statement, or is it too concrete for you to deal with?
Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.
This is my starting point -- as well as ending point -- right here. :wink:
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Iacchus32
From the thread, Why the bias against materialism? ...

Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.
This is my starting point -- as well as ending point -- right here. :wink: [/QUOTE] And none of that refutes a single tiny bit of natural selection. Wow, you have almost as many posts as I do, and you don't have any idea how to reply TO YOUR OWN THREAD!
 
  • #51
Originally posted by Zero
And none of that refutes a single tiny bit of natural selection. Wow, you have almost as many posts as I do, and you don't have any idea how to reply TO YOUR OWN THREAD!
About all I can do at this point is refer you to my Timeline Thread, all of which is based upon the one experience that happened in 1987 (rebirth experience). While the thing about it, if the experience was real (am only putting it this way for your benefit), then the number I came up with, "230," can't just dangle there, not without it fitting into some sort of pattern. Or least this is what I was thinking when I started considering the timeline. If the experience is real, then the number 230 "must" signify something.

And sure enough, the dates I came up with, seem to be in accord with specific events in history, that suggest the beginning and the end of "an era," and hence church: i.e., the Church of Adam, the Church of Noah, the Israelite Chuch, the Christian Church, etc..

And, while I'm not asking anyone to accept this as conclusive evidence that a spiritual reality exists, nor can I verify that the Timeline is 100% accurate -- however, I do know the experience was real -- I would like it to be allowed as admissable, in the likelihood that futher evidence should come up to corroborate it. Or, let's just say in my own mind I have no problem accepting a spiritual reality, and can only marvel at the potential accuracy that the Timeline seems to suggest, Okay? :smile:
 
  • #52


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Another evolutionary mechanism? What was wrong with the first one? And why is it that we only associate the latter with the Advent of Modern Man? Again, what makes "us" so special?

As I said initially, "some people would argue that such uses of technology is 'natural' human behavior". Does this defuse the rest of this debate? :wink:
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Phobos
As I said initially, "some people would argue that such uses of technology is 'natural' human behavior". Does this defuse the rest of this debate? :wink:
Yes, in terms of "natural" human behavior I would have to agree. And yet in terms of the environment, I don't see how it can possibly be construed as natural, to which I've given various reasons for above. But then again these are merely observations, to which others around here don't seem to think is acceptable evidence. So I guess it's not possible to say such things without having some sort of scientific study to back it up.

Is this what evidence means? Or, is it possible that an observation can be held up as evidence? I suppose it could in a court of law. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.

Where did you get that crazy idea? Your suggesting that you can't learn something for yourself, on your own? Your first months of life ar nothing but learning, and I'd be willing to bet the majority of that knowledge is not told to us from someone else.

If what you suggest is true, then automated robots like this one

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994075

would not work.


I would like it to be allowed as admissable, in the likelihood that futher evidence should come up to corroborate it. Or, let's just say in my own mind I have no problem accepting a spiritual reality, and can only marvel at the potential accuracy that the Timeline seems to suggest, Okay?

admissable to what degree? I mean, if you just want it around so you can say "See, I told you so", well that seems kinda vain. As many times as you've referenced it, we all know it's on your page, right?

Tell me this, how strong was your biblical knowledge at the time of your vision?


Is this what evidence means? Or, is possible that an observation can be held up as evidence? I suppose it could in a court of law.

I don't think evidence based on a vision, or observation as you've come to call it, that can not be directly observed by others, or in the slightest way provide a shred of evidence for, would hold up in a court of law. Remember that whole reasonable doubt thing?

I don't think you can construct an argument for some supernatural event that is beyond reasonable doubt, either.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by megashawn
Where did you get that crazy idea? Your suggesting that you can't learn something for yourself, on your own?
No, I'm saying just the opposite! I'm saying that unless we can acknowledge things for ourselves, and "truly know," through the faculty of being conscious -- the very thing which "defines" existence itself -- and I don't mean science -- then that's all we would be capable of doing, repeating what someone else has told us. I would recommend reading Zero's thread for a little more clarity on this. :wink:


admissable to what degree? I mean, if you just want it around so you can say "See, I told you so", well that seems kinda vain.
I was having problems trying to phrase this correctly. What I was trying to say was not to discount it, based upon the other evidence which may not be available at this time, you know, that a spiritual reality exists?


As many times as you've referenced it, we all know it's on your page, right?
Oh really, yet this is one of the first times anyone has made mention of it. :wink:


Tell me this, how strong was your biblical knowledge at the time of your vision?
Familiar enough, and although I suspected it had something to do with the "New Church," and was able to find the passage in the book of Revelation, I still had little or no understanding of the book of Revelation at that time, not until I was able to reference it with http://www.swedenborg.com/ materials perhaps a year later.


I don't think evidence based on a vision, or observation as you've come to call it, that can not be directly observed by others, or in the slightest way provide a shred of evidence for, would hold up in a court of law. Remember that whole reasonable doubt thing?
And yet if wasn't for the vision I wouldn't have been able to come up with the date (1987) and contrast it with Swedenborg's date (1757).


I don't think you can construct an argument for some supernatural event that is beyond reasonable doubt, either.
And yet I did come up with a timeline based upon these two these dates, which is at least worth taking a look into.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Okay, I'm going to try and do this one more time. I'm going to take some of the previous points that I made in this thread and ask you why it shouldn't be considered evidence.

But before I get started I would like to mention one thing, that I have no qualms with the theory of Natural Selection, at least in terms of the natural world. So in this respect I would ask that you not argue from the standpoint from Natural Selection, as this is not my point. Am sorry if the title may seem a little misleading in that respect. The distinction that I'm trying to make here -- and hence the "actual flaw" -- involves man's relationship with nature, but not the natural world itself. Which to me, as I pointed out in one of the previous posts, "a clash" does exist, and is rather glaring as far as I'm concerned.

With that in mind perhaps we should begin:

1. A Timeline: Why is it that we've only existed as "a species" for about 10,000 years? And why all of sudden that mankind experiences this tremendous rate of growth? The likes of which doesn't seem possible for a system which is designed to progress at it's own rate -- over the eons -- where the passage of time has little or no consequence. Which thus brings up the notion of time. Why is it that only mankind, of all the species on earth, seems to be preoccupied with time? Why do "we" bother to keep a record of it? Do other species do this?

Which brings up another question. Why is it that recorded history doesn't go back beyond 5,000 BC? Is it possible that there was some Great Deluge (flood) around 5,143 BC, that could have wiped everything out? This is the date that I come up with by the way, that I refer to in my Spiritual Timeline at the beginning of the thread.

Another thing is where are all the missing links? There's a vast enough difference between a man and a chimp, why isn't there a whole subset species between the two? Whereas when you look at it, given the development of agriculture in Asia Minor about 10,000 years ago where, let's say we were possibly "transplanted" as a species, you know, from the Garden of Eden? wouldn't that be just about enough time to account for the difference in "evolution" of the races? Don't you think? So here we are spreading like a vine -- through agriculture -- after having been transplanted from the Garden. Hmm ... While it's funny how the date I came up with for the Advent of Adam, was 7,443 BC or, about 9,446 years ago.

2. Feeling Estranged: And what of the feelings of estrangment, or the sense that we're somehow "separated" from nature? And yet it's a pretty broadly based assumption, and I think most people will readily say they feel a "distinct detachment" from nature. And what if we were "fallen creatures?" Don't you think this would be evidenced by the fact we are at odds with nature, in a constant struggle for supremeacy over it? How does that belie living in harmony with it? Is it possible evolution has run amok?

3. Man-Made vs Artificial: And indeed it would seem man has done virtually everything possible to "recreate" nature to his own liking. Whooa ... wait a second. What does this have to do with being natural, where everything "natural" about it gets by-passed? Thus by tampering with it, and not allowing nature to "run its course," we have to deal with the side-effects: overpopulation, pollution, diminishment of resources, lack of natural diversity, etc. Doesn't this sound a bit like playing God -- which, is supposedly why we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place? Hmm ...

Hence it would seem "our thinking" is outside of nature which, could be the very problem right there. Meaning, we really don't know what the heck we're doing! :wink:

4. Nature of Addiction: If man were so in tune with his environment, then it would seem that all his basic needs should be easily satiated. Or for that matter, why would he require anything more than what was basic? -- which of course he doesn't. And yet why do we seem to be addicted to everything uner the sun? Why all the alcohol, the cigarettes, the drugs, the religion, pornography, the food, fancy cars, fancy houses, the latest fashions, music fanatics, sports fanatics? Why do we "worship" movie idols and what not? Why all the extravagance?

5. Spiritual vs Natural: So why do we seem to be so out of control? Could it be because we don't know how to live in harmony with ourselves, because we're spiritual beings and weren't meant to be a part of nature? Whereas through our addictions we try to conceal any possible "guilt feelings" associated with our fallen nature? Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible? Have you ever seen a monkey psychiatrist, a monkey doctor, or a monkey lawyer? Unless of course you wish to refer to us humans. :wink: Do you ever think a lion will doubt that it's lion? Or a fish doubt that it's a fish? It seems highly unlikely, otherwise -- much like us -- it would be in conflict with its environment.

So you see if we understood that our stay here was only temporary, and that indeed a spiritual reality does exist, then perhaps we would be less inclined to fulfill our every "material whim," and stop ravaging the damn planet!


Well, that's pretty much what I've touched on so far (and then some), and I honestly don't see how anyone can come across saying I have no foundation for what I have to say. Do you? :wink:
 
  • #57
I'm very glad this column is in Religion.

I've never heard of anything so absurd. Talk about going against all proven evidence and supplying no logical evidence of your own!

Yeesh - even for a religion forum this is very very scary "stuff"...


Iacchus32 - You make so many claims that are disproven, and you ask so many questions is if they have no known answers when they are answered in introductory textbooks.

This tells me that you don't do any research which will hurt your concepts. You read the books which support it and they to say "Where's the evidence" and yet you never once pick up a book of knowledge and learn that what you claim as "mystery" and use to try to prove your outrageously strange claims is actually very simply proven.

I can't imagine myself wasting the time to go through this mess - and from my experience with similar others, you'd surely never learn a thing that doesn't support these outlandish "hypothesis"...
 
  • #58
LOL...good point, BF, he asks questions, and instead of doing research, he makes up answers that suit him.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by BiologyForums
I'm very glad this column is in Religion.
I could have just as easily posted it in the philosphy forum. :wink:

I've never heard of anything so absurd. Talk about going against all proven evidence and supplying no logical evidence of your own!

Yeesh - even for a religion forum this is very very scary "stuff"...
What's so scary about it? That it actually might make sense? Yes, the truth is enough to cause alarm for a lot of people I'm afraid.


Iacchus32 - You make so many claims that are disproven, and you ask so many questions is if they have no known answers when they are answered in introductory textbooks.
Actually I'm only making one claim, and the rest are (astute) observations to back it up. Of course I think you already knew that. :wink:


This tells me that you don't do any research which will hurt your concepts. You read the books which support it and they to say "Where's the evidence" and yet you never once pick up a book of knowledge and learn that what you claim as "mystery" and use to try to prove your outrageously strange claims is actually very simply proven.
And where should I conduct my research? And whose answers should I accept?


I can't imagine myself wasting the time to go through this mess - and from my experience with similar others, you'd surely never learn a thing that doesn't support these outlandish "hypothesis"...
So what are you afraid of or, is there some other ulterior motive behind your posting here? The way you come across by the way, sure doesn't sound very professional for someone who has just opened up their own forum. Are you going to insist on maintaining the status quo there too? Lots of luck! :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I could have just as easily posted it in the philosphy forum. :wink:

What's so scary about it? That it actually makes sense? Yes, the truth is enough to cause alarm for a lot of people I'm afraid.


Actually I'm only making one claim, and the rest are (astute) observations to back it up. Of course I think you already knew that. :wink:


And where should I conduct my research? And whose answers should I accept?


So what are you afraid of or, is there some other ulterior motive behind your posting here? The way you come across by the way, sure doesn't sound very professional for someone who has just opened up their own forum. Are you going to insist on maintaining the status quo there too? Lots of luck! :wink:

I don't think there is any fear, or any cause for fear. You are on teh far fringe, and you will always remain there with the rest of the folks who have strong beliefs and a hatred of logic, facts, and simple common sense.
 
  • #61
Originally posted by Zero
LOL...good point, BF, he asks questions, and instead of doing research, he makes up answers that suit him.
He was just making it easy on you Zero, so you wouldn't bother to read my post and not think about what I have to say. :wink:

He probably figured it might be too much of a strain.
 
  • #62
Originally posted by Iacchus32
He was just making it easy on you Zero, so you wouldn't bother to read my post and not think about what I have to say. :wink:

He probably figured it might be too much of a strain.

No, I read all of it...a bunch of questions, and leaps to unfounded assumptions. That's your trademark, though. You need to read some books, answer some questions, and when you have been completely debunked, come back and try again. I am NOT doing your research for you.
 
  • #63
Did you notice how he completely avoided my comments, and your agreement Zero, and instead made a joke to pass that uncomfortable moment, and used his trademark orange smilie? It's like he hides from the truth behind it.

Zero - Iacchus32 will never do his research.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by BiologyForums
Did you notice how he completely avoided my comments, and your agreement Zero, and instead made a joke to pass that uncomfortable moment, and used his trademark orange smilie? It's like he hides from the truth behind it.

Zero - Iacchus32 will never do his research.
Well, I mean...look at what he starts with. Man as a species appeared suddenly 10,000 years ago? where did he come up with that?!?
 
  • #65
Yeah, I know. Apparently he has no clue...

...another piece I caught while scrolling down was this comment to the effect that "The human population has grown so fast recently."

Failing to even understand the fundamental basics that a species with no predators and an unlimited resource supply has absolutely no reason not to grow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
Originally posted by Zero
No, I read all of it...a bunch of questions, and leaps to unfounded assumptions. That's your trademark, though. You need to read some books, answer some questions, and when you have been completely debunked, come back and try again. I am NOT doing your research for you.
There's really only one unfounded question here which, is really not unfounded if at least one person can ascertain it. Whereas if any of it could be ascertained, then the rest will most likely follow suit.

By the way Zero, wasn't Logical Atheist a biology major?
 
  • #67
Originally posted by BiologyForums
Yeah, I know. Apparently he has no clue...

...another piece I caught while scrolling down was this comment to the effect that "The human population has grown so fast recently."

Failing to even understand the fundamental basics that a species with no predators and an unlimited resource supply has absolutely no reason not to grow.
Nope, it must be magic!
 
  • #68
Originally posted by Iacchus32
There's really only one unfounded question here which, is really not unfounded if at least one person can ascertain it. Whereas if any of it could be ascertained, then the rest will most likely follow suit.

By the way Zero, wasn't Logical Atheist a biology major?

Ummm...what sort of make-believe are you talking about now?


And what does Logical Atheist have to do with anything?
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...what sort of make-believe are you talking about now?


And what does Logical Atheist have to do with anything?
Do you know what I think? I think I'm going to hold off here until somebody poses a legitimate question that I can respond to. Heck, at least FZ+ was willing to debate the issues with me! :wink:
 
  • #70
I think that's precisely what everyone is doing Iacchus32.

Waiting for someone (you) to post a legitimate question.
 

Similar threads

Natural selection, evolution "why are we still sick"
    • Biology and Medical
Replies
17
Views
3K
Is epigenetics an additional mechanism for natural selection?
    • Biology and Medical
Replies
16
Views
2K
A Natural completion of theories
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
6
Views
1K
A Exploring Entanglement Swapping: Post-Selection vs. BSM?
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
79
Views
5K
A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
6K
B New Theory vs New Force/Field of nature
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
22
Views
3K
I Quantum theory - Nature Paper 18 Sept
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
6
Replies
183
Views
18K
A Uncovering the Combinatorial Origins of Yang-Mills Theory?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
523
A "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
79
A Is renormalization the ideal solution?
    • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
57
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top