Flies manifesting on rock?

[svrn]

The peacock does fly no matter what distance so your comment does not still stand. The amount of flight in the video that I saw is still quite useful.

And like I said, a sixth finger means nothing to me since its just a finger which already existed. Id need to see an appendage with a completely new function suddenly apear to be convinced. Such as a completely qingless species suddenly being born with a wing which I dont think can happen.

On the spontaneous manifestation thing. I think that the biggest indicator that it is real is the chicken and the egg question. Nobody can answer which came first so I have concluded that the only answer to this question can be that it spontaneously maifested.

[TylerDurden]

If we assume a Universe which goes in for an eternal Big Bang/Big Crunch scenario, then everything always existed so never needed to be created in the first place.

The fact that the peacock can't fly long distances disproves your point completely. It demonstrates that the peacock can still survive even though its poorly evolved wings are deficient by comparison to the wings of birds like ducks which can fly long distance. Being able to fly to trees still means it's vulnerable to predators able to climb those trees.

The 6th fingers on these human mutants never existed before. I mean, there was no parent's original stump from which the finger slowly evolved. 

[svrn]

fly- To move through the air by means of wings or winglike parts.

end of argument.

also i dont believe in a big bang big crunch. I believe time is a loop like an ouroburous. A loop which musthave been created.

[TylerDurden]

Time-loops may be a natural law, for all we know.

And you still haven't debunked my point re flying. You completely missed my point that peacocks' wings are poorly designed for flying properly. Just flying to the nearest tree does not make peacocks competent flyers.

[svrn]

the video of the peacock fits the definition of flight. Also what that peacock demonstrated gave it a definite survival advantage over an identical bird that cannot fly therefore yes the argument is over unless you can contest these two points.

[TylerDurden]

the video of the peacock fits the definition of flight. Also what that peacock demonstrated gave it a definite survival advantage over an identical bird that cannot fly therefore yes the argument is over unless you can contest these two points.

  You're missing the point as usual. I have already debunked your theory anyway with my remark re ostriches being perfectly capable of surviving despite having useless wings and being unable to fly. I have also shown that peacocks, despite being poor flyers due to their faulty wings, are still capable of surviving despite that. So the evolutionary theory that holds that birds can develop fully functional wings over generations without dying out, turns out to be correct and your arguments are flawed.

[svrn]

once again you attempted to weasel out of my point.
My point was that the peacock, being a flying bird has a survival advantage over an identical bird that couldnt fly at all.

do you contest this point?

[TylerDurden]

once again you attempted to weasel out of my point.
My point was that the peacock, being a flying bird has a survival advantage over an identical bird that couldn't fly at all.

do you contest this point?

As usual, dead wrong. There are penguin species similiar in size to peacocks, which are flightless, and penguins also have their means to escape predators. They can go on land to escape them for example.

The point here is that if a specific mutation, which gives birds only rudimentary wings which they can't use to fly with, isn't harmful either and/or has some very minor advantage(such as wings being used to give shade to eggs or whatever), then the birds survive until they eventually evolve proper wings.

[svrn]

once again you failed to address my original point.

also you have it all backwards. Flightless birds dont evolve into birds that fly. All of the flightless birds had ancestors that flew as is scientifically proven in the article I posted earlier.

[TylerDurden]

As I recall, birds evolved from flightless/wingless dinosaurs, so this is immaterial. As regards flightless birds, it wouldn't surprise me if the fossil record eventually proves you wrong. At any rate, we have the evidence of penguins who had wings which then turned into something different, namely flippers. That's good enough to debunk the idea of spontaneous creation.

[svrn]

im not going to argue the same points with you repeatedly anymore. My viewpoint is here for anyone interested and I think it is obvious for anyone looking at it objectively.

[CitrusHigh]

http://www.evillusion.net/

[svrn]

wonderful link copout

[intrigued]

So you believe that anything is possible, including spontaneous generation of an adult lifeform from nothing, but a generational mutation of a new organ is absolutely impossible?  I certainly don't know the answer one way or another, but that seems contradictory.

You are giving examples where flightless birds have ancestors who had flight, but if you don't believe animals "evolve" in ways that degrade their functionality (i.e. arms changing into wing-like appendages that don't yet function), why would there BE flightless birds?  It seems like you're trying to dismiss evolution by providing examples where evolution occurred.  Evolution doesn't mean all your traits grow stronger all the time, it means you've found a niche and are currently beating out any competition to stay there.

Anyway, I guess my head still jives with the evolution side more.  It's not a scientific study or anything, but this gives some good ideas on the possible evolution of flight - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html .  Specifically, the idea of exaptation is interesting, that wings were evolving as an advantage for some other purpose, and then ended up being advantageous for flight (e.g. first evolving for gliding/leaping).

As far as the chicken and the egg, that's just wordplay.  It relies on a false definition that the parents of a chicken must have been a chicken, and all depends on where you draw the line for when something is a chicken.  It's like the ship of theseus.  It questions our system of classification and how we view things, but it doesn't change what actually happened.  If anything, it just points out that we are flawed in trying to assign a name (such as "chicken") for all individuals in a group.  Though flawed, in practice this type of classification is obviously useful to our species for communication.

[svrn]

Yes it is impossible because how can a detrimental appendage make someone reproduce more than the same person without that detriment. Its inconsistent with the rest of evolutionary theory.

Anyway, iv recently stumbled upon a new example of why natural selection theory makes no sense.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/04/19/woman-dies-after-drinking-10-liters-coke-day/

theres one case of an idiotic woman who drank 10 liters of coke a day and died because of it (big surprise). According to natural selection, this type of behavior would kill her and make her unable to pass on the faulty genes which caused her to do this, thus eliminating these faulty genes from the gene pool. However this woman had 8 kids. She had many times more children than all of the other people who have much better genes for survival. This very common type of situation completely invalidates natural selection since it shows that fitness and survival ability are totally unrelated to how many children a person has.

[intrigued]

Dying doesn't make natural selection invalid.  Natural selection is about passing your genes down effectively, not about being literally the strongest.  Her ability to attract a mate and have kids early and fast is the natural advantage, her ability to live a long time is irrelevant in this case.  Natural selection is about effectively passing on your DNA, and one of the strategies for that is to pop out a bunch of offspring quick, even if you aren't particularly "strong" individually.

I guess the point is that you're looking at "good genes" with a different definition than the one given by this theory, which makes it impossible to actually understand what it's saying.  You're looking for literal strength, vigor, intelligence, and good health.  Good genes, in this context, means whatever works to propagate your DNA.  I think it's a pretty common mistake to think natural selection means "whoever is the biggest or smartest or fastest will survive", and there's an element of that in it, but it's not all there is to it.  I think that error tends to come from the reductionist viewpoint that evolution = survival of the "fittest".

[svrn]

natural selection means that whoever is the biggest, fastest, smartest, strongest will have more kids than weak slow stupid ones who cant survive. This is how we evolve according to evolution theory.  If the fat slow and stupid group had more kids then that would cause devolution.

It is a very simple (incorrect) concept and I never said dying invalidated it. What invalidates it is that the weak slow and stupid have more kids than the fit and strong all of the time.

And yes evolution does mean exactly that survival of the fittest. Have you actually read any Darwin or are you just repeating your schools indoctrination?

[intrigued]

The quotes around "fittest" are showing that you are using a flawed definition. All that matters is fitness in terms of reproductive survivability. Like it or not she IS fitter than most in terms of surviving long enough to produce lots of offspring. Shes also extremely fit within the animal kingdom in terms of intelligence. It's about humans being better. Darwin says there is variation within a species and that these variations can cause better fitness for survival. An aggregation of these changes can result in a new species. One woman having more kids than average and doing something you think is stupid doesn't disprove evolution, in my opinion. 

I suggest you look into the term you used - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology) . This pretty well states what I'm trying to explain. Devolution is a misnomer, modern biology says these changes are evolution even though you may subjectively think one trait is "better" than the other. For example, having sight seems like it is "better" but its actually better not to have them if theyre a waste of resources in a dark cave. Anyway I was just trying to help level set but I shouldve realized from the initial post and follow ups the hostility against ideas you don't believe in so I'll butt out.

[svrn]

all you want to do is play definition games. Anyway, iv made my point about natural selection and some of the most unfit people having the most kids and how this would make evolving impossible. Im not gonna argue that point anymore since it seems very clear to me and some who thinks about it will either understand it or try to come up with some complicated excuse to make it go away.

heres another example

I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!!

[TylerDurden]

Dear God! This woman should have had her tubes tied so that she could not have had any children. The big problem is that the more educated/intelligent  a woman is the fewer children she has, and vice-versa.I've seen this in my daily life - most of  the women I've known who were particularly intelligent either had one or no children.  And what is worse  is that due to modern science keeping alive ever more prematurely-born babies and ever more children with defective genes such as those with cystic fybrosis, haemophilia etc. etc., the percentage-chances of people being born with such conditions rises by a small percentage every generation. This means that within 1,000 to 10,000 years we will have a sick, stupid human population similiar to the societies portrayed in E M Forster's "The Machine Stops" and that film, "Idiocracy".

What should be done is to give large tax-reductions to any man or woman, worldwide, with postgraduate degrees who has more than 3 children - let-say, those people pay no income-tax at all after their 8th child, and  their children get free schooling at high-quality State grammar schools plus free childcare costs. Plus, we should only allow people to have children if they have passed a suitably difficult exam. And genetic screening prior to any wedding/ or birth could prevent conditions like cystic fibrosis from happening.

[Raw Kyle]

Haven't read the whole thread but it follows that if this is possible then it could be reproduced to demonstrate it, right?

[Raw Kyle]

I mean fuck, if we can't even nail down the position and velocity of an electron then we've got a looooooooooooooooong way to go before we know shit about shit.

I see the quantum mechanics conundrum in a different light. Knowing the position and velocity of an electron at the same time (which is what can't now be done, they can both be known separately at any given time) is just about the only thing that there doesn't seem to be any headway in knowing. And this is cherry picked out of all of science to say something like "we don't know anything" which I think is an attempt to discredit a lot of real knowledge in order to disorient people into believing the ideas of the person making that claim. In this case it's AV, who like I'm sure everyone knows made a career out of claiming things that he didn't make an effort to prove, whether or not he could. He just says things, some people believe it for their own reasons (none of which are ever evidence) and people give him money for books and consultations. He's certainly not the first and won't be the last to make a career that way. Say what you want about scientists, that they don't know "anything" (as you use a computer based on science driven building techniques) but at least their stated goal is to convince through evidence rather than story telling.

I'd actually be very surprised if anyone who uses the electron thing has actually read any quantum theory science. I'll eat my hat if you got that from reading science and not from watching "What the Bleep Do We Know" or something similar.

[CitrusHigh]

Sure kyle, whatever you say.
__________________________________

As a side note, since learning about the Annunaki and the Sumerian Tablets, coupled with the vast knowledge and architectural feats of the ancients I've updated my 'theory of the most likely way we got here' as follows.

Not sure how life got here, but likely did not generate itself spontaneously, rather was either placed here by ET's or stray meteor that made it to earth with intact life. Then life did indeed evolve over billions of years, whether guided or not, I don't know. Then a few hundred thousand years ago the Annunaki show up looking for gold. Eventually grow weary of the physical labor, grab some neanderthals (or some similar hominid) whip up a few rough drafts, then come up with modern man.  Have man do the dirty work. Annunaki travel around the world setting themselves up as gods (which is how they would've appeared to the quaint humans) before the ancients, leading to all the 'mythology' all around the world which nearly always has the 'gods' coming from the heavens.

Eventually they decide to either abandon earth and leave it to us, or are among us, or monitoring from nearby.
________________________________

With the billions or trillions or infinite number of galaxies in our universe alone (our dimension?) it is absurd not to think that there's other intelligent life out there.

There is assuredly an intelligent source field which appears to be made out of love, or at least responds to love affirmatively. We know this because of the peculiar way 'coincidence' and synchronicity occurs. If you've ever paid attention to how life works and especially the law of attraction, you know deep down that shit isn't just random, things be happenin' in this incredible, humbling, 'just so' manner that is so perfect you would think it couldn't be planned, and yet there is no other explanation here. The universe is in fact conspiring on your behalf and all you really have to do is be clear about what your goals are. That is the best evidence we have for God (as in the source, creator of all things, sustaining force, infinite love, NOT god as in YHWH, quetzlcoatl, Ra, etc). But it's not testable evidence as far as I can tell, just let's you know personally that this Source is there, and you can communicate with it and have it feed back to you.

This is why animals seem to respond to love so affirmatively as well. And why they respond negatively to unpleasant energies like anger, anxiety, hate.

Highly recommendo all of Zecharia Sitchin's work, read with a grain of salt, very critically and just like with gurus, taking the good stuff and discarding the rest.

Josh Reeves has a particularly humorous reading of "The Lost Book of Enki" but it's not for people with sensitive ears. There will be pouring of the semen in to the womb, and talk of incest and vulvas and lots of other fun stuff, kind of like 5000 year old erotica.

[Raw Kyle]

Where do you think the Annunaki or other ET's that placed original life on earth came from, evolutionarily speaking?

[svrn]

Dear God! This woman should have had her tubes tied so that she could not have had any children. The big problem is that the more educated/intelligent  a woman is the fewer children she has, and vice-versa.I've seen this in my daily life - most of  the women I've known who were particularly intelligent either had one or no children.  And what is worse  is that due to modern science keeping alive ever more prematurely-born babies and ever more children with defective genes such as those with cystic fybrosis, haemophilia etc. etc., the percentage-chances of people being born with such conditions rises by a small percentage every generation. This means that within 1,000 to 10,000 years we will have a sick, stupid human population similiar to the societies portrayed in E M Forster's "The Machine Stops" and that film, "Idiocracy".

What should be done is to give large tax-reductions to any man or woman, worldwide, with postgraduate degrees who has more than 3 children - let-say, those people pay no income-tax at all after their 8th child, and  their children get free schooling at high-quality State grammar schools plus free childcare costs. Plus, we should only allow people to have children if they have passed a suitably difficult exam. And genetic screening prior to any wedding/ or birth could prevent conditions like cystic fibrosis from happening.

Eugenics is never a good answer.