Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby McKoga on April 19th, 2017, 2:14 am

I think it's very important to mention that evolution of species has never been observed or proven. Species don't evolve into other species.

In which case one would wager that man did not evolve from ape. At least not naturally.
McKoga
Newbie
 
Posts: 5
Joined: April 15th, 2017, 5:41 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby patrix on April 19th, 2017, 7:54 am

A thing that gets to me when people criticize the theory of evolution (and I’m not referring to a suggested close relationship between man and ape which I myself find doubtable, but the broader concept that more advanced life forms evolved from simpler) is that this does not prove any other theory. In order to disprove something I generally think you need no have something better to offer. It’s like flat earth. To try poke holes in the globe model does not prove any other shape of the earth. And I think creationism or intelligent design fits the masonic tptb agenda just perfect. Don’t try to figure things out by yourself. Accept that some things cannot be explained. To explain something with a “creator” or “intelligent designer” is the same thing. We can only explain this with something unexplainable.

It’s pretty clear that all animals including humans have similarities in their anatomy. Four legged animals like cats and horses run around on what is the fingertips on our hands etc. But then there are problems like the close man-ape relationship and this I suspect is the work of masonry. Take this plausible and reasonable theory of the origin of advanced life forms and poison it with some crap and have us arguing about it forever.
Last edited by patrix on April 19th, 2017, 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby pov603 on April 19th, 2017, 8:17 am

Flabbergasted » 18 Apr 2017, 21:19 wrote:
aa5 wrote:If a child saw a platypus, the child would say hey it is an otter-duck [...] the child I now believe would be right.

Image
It was so obvious and I couldn´t see it...


That was worth at least one :D

If we start considering 'combinations' etc and oxymorons, Military Inteligence is one oxymoron that comes to mind immediately (somebody else somewhere had already come up with that one sometime ago...)
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 732
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby dblitz on April 19th, 2017, 1:50 pm

patrix, you said:

In order to disprove something I generally think you need no have something better to offer.


That may be what you generally think but its not actually true is it?

I admit I'm biased in that I believe the universe was intelligently created, but I also think of it as a scientific model that best fits the evidence. I'm sure there are other ideas and theories around but I have mainly looked at the creation/evolution debate so in that I am limited. I did a google search for alternatives to evolution and found this page:

http://listverse.com/2013/03/08/10-alternatives-to-evolution/

It does looks a lot like the internet, so watch out. I'm too tired to read it and I'm going to bed but you do raise some other interesting points that do make me reconsider my own position, so I will try to post about them tomorrow if i can come up with anything.
dblitz
Member
 
Posts: 234
Joined: April 27th, 2013, 3:32 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby Flabbergasted on April 19th, 2017, 2:57 pm

patrix wrote:In order to disprove something I generally think you need no have something better to offer.

Not so.

Proving something is wrong, contradictory or fake does not encumber one with the obligation to offer a better or "the right" explanation. It is "negative work", for sure, in that it refutes or falsifies an existing paradigm, theory or explanation, replacing it with nothing, but it is the first and frequently the only possible step one can take with any degree of certainty.

What would become of CF if unmasking media fakery required explaining "what really happened"?

But, I agree, when someone demonstrates the falseness of a theory or media story, conversation partners will inevitably ask for the "truth", either because they are left with an uncomfortable vacuum in their weltanschauung or because it is assumed that someone capable of disproving such a pervasive error must also be capable of figuring out the truth of the matter.

It is when you go from the "negative stage" (refuting/unmasking) to the "positive stage" (speculating/explaining) that you risk getting branded as a conspiracy theorist. I am not saying we should refrain from speculating, connecting the dots or testing rational alternative scenarios, but that the first part of the work should be allowed to stand on its own merits, irrespective of the existence of alternative hypotheses. In fact, some speculations are best left for a small audience of trusted friends.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby patrix on April 19th, 2017, 3:31 pm

@ dblitz and Flabbergasted
Good points. I did not express myself very clearly. What I meant was that the theory of evolution is just that and can never be upgraded to law by controlled experiments or self evident observations. But it is still regarded a theory because of compelling observations and reasonable explanations of them. But it can never be proven, and thus if you want to dispute such a theory, I think you need to come up with a better explanation to the observations made.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby aa5 on April 19th, 2017, 3:53 pm

Good points, I think most people, especially university educated people, cannot handle the idea that we just don't know something. If official science said with the origin theory of evolution, this is our best hypothesis, but also realize here are the holes which we do not currently have explanations for.. I think most people would turn to some religious guru telling them a ridiculous story but with 100% certainty.

I was frustrated for a while at how science is taught in universities, about how it teaches a dogma that the students memorize, like reciting holy scriptures, until I realized that university isn't for open minded people, it is to train legions of semi-competent technocrats who will unquestionably carry out the orders of those above them. It isn't the place of engineers to question the engineering standard or doctors to question the standard of care.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 180
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby ICfreely on April 19th, 2017, 8:36 pm

patrix wrote:
In order to disprove something I generally think you need no have something better to offer.



You say that but as soon as you're asked to provide sources you come back with:


I'm a bit reluctant these days to give references and citations to prove points because they may just as well be the works of shills or "useful idiots".

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1854&start=135#p2403181



If you're not confident enough in your own stance to provide sources, then you'll forgive me if I don't think you "have something better to offer."
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby patrix on April 20th, 2017, 8:54 am

ICfreely » April 19th, 2017, 8:36 pm wrote:
patrix wrote:
If you're not confident enough in your own stance to provide sources, then you'll forgive me if I don't think you "have something better to offer."

Hi ICfreely. Again, I think there’s a discrepancy between what I mean and what I wrote, so please pay attention to what I mean this time (joke).

To offer an analogy, most people reading this knows that tptb are promoting a great deal of 9/11 false conspiracy theories. There’s Judy Woods, Christopher Bollyn, James Corbett and a bunch of others. And when you realize something is wrong with the official version most people end up in one of those because they are compelling lies and it is easier to fool people. But this does of course not only happen in the realm of 9/11. More resources to accomplish this is put in the field of science and in particular medicine. I could give you references and citations to my different conclusions and you in turn could give me counter references. And yours would probably carry more weight if it is concerning something I suspect we are being misled about.

I’ve studied and experimented on medicine and nutrition on my spare time for six years now, and from that I’ve concluded that much of what is portrayed as established facts is bull, and so have many others. But what I’ve also discovered through my realization of the "grand conspiracy", is that many of the prominent figures within alternative medicine (in lack of a better word) that agree on this are themselves promoting lies and half truths. It is a maze and that is of course the intention. So I could offer you a heap of material that to me shows that for example vegetarianism/veganism is by no means healthy and can result in serious health problems over time, but I suspect I would be treated like a “no planer” in a 9/11-truth forum. So my recommendation, as I wrote before, is to from what I and others claim, set up an hypothesis that challenges one of your current stances and then learn about the subject matter and do your own research and experiments to try to confirm or falsify that hypothesis. And medicine and nutrition is a great area to do this. For one it is very important. It is literally a matter of life and death. And you can easily experiment on your own body. For example try skipping breakfast and add a generous amount of organic butter to your lunch. Do that for a couple of months and take notes on how you feel.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby McKoga on April 20th, 2017, 7:56 pm

patrix » April 19th, 2017, 1:54 am wrote:A thing that gets to me when people criticize the theory of evolution (and I’m not referring to a suggested close relationship between man and ape which I myself find doubtable, but the broader concept that more advanced life forms evolved from simpler) is that this does not prove any other theory. In order to disprove something I generally think you need no have something better to offer. It’s like flat earth. To try poke holes in the globe model does not prove any other shape of the earth. And I think creationism or intelligent design fits the masonic tptb agenda just perfect. Don’t try to figure things out by yourself. Accept that some things cannot be explained. To explain something with a “creator” or “intelligent designer” is the same thing. We can only explain this with something unexplainable.

It’s pretty clear that all animals including humans have similarities in their anatomy. Four legged animals like cats and horses run around on what is the fingertips on our hands etc. But then there are problems like the close man-ape relationship and this I suspect is the work of masonry. Take this plausible and reasonable theory of the origin of advanced life forms and poison it with some crap and have us arguing about it forever.


Just because there isn't another theory doesn't mean we should blindly stick to one that has been falsified. It hampers our knowledge to believe in evolution because when observations are made that go against the tenets of evolution, they are warped or disregarded because it's easier to throw one or two or a hundred observations out the window than it is to throw away one of the bedrock theories of modern science/religion.

I agree that all animals seem to work off the same plan. We take that to mean that all animals evolved from the same source. But the similarities between species could also be a hint of a single designer. I don't mean the christian god or the annunaki. But something....
McKoga
Newbie
 
Posts: 5
Joined: April 15th, 2017, 5:41 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby McKoga on April 20th, 2017, 8:00 pm

patrix » April 19th, 2017, 9:31 am wrote:@ dblitz and Flabbergasted
Good points. I did not express myself very clearly. What I meant was that the theory of evolution is just that and can never be upgraded to law by controlled experiments or self evident observations. But it is still regarded a theory because of compelling observations and reasonable explanations of them. But it can never be proven, and thus if you want to dispute such a theory, I think you need to come up with a better explanation to the observations made.


It's called the theory of evolution and the Origin of Species

There has never been observed speciation. Ever. Whether by mutation, natural selection, or sexual selection.

Natural and sexual selection leads to biological diversity within species (humanity being a pertinent example) but it has never been observed to lead to a creation of a new species.
McKoga
Newbie
 
Posts: 5
Joined: April 15th, 2017, 5:41 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby Seneca on April 21st, 2017, 5:41 pm

nonhocapito » 17 Apr 2017, 17:32 wrote:The idea that this differentiation could also be the result of interbreeding between species doesn't strike me as super convincing but also doesn't bother me, once again because I am not in the position to judge whether this is really the case or that it really has relevance. It seems a little less equipped, though, to explain why there are creatures adapted to the most miraculous and harsh conditions on the planet, something that natural selection instead explains quite well.


The ideas of Eugene McCarthy are also new to me, but I think you are somewhat misinterpreting what he is actually saying. He is not trying to replace or criticise the concept of natural selection.
He is criticising the assertion of (neo) Darwinians that most changes in organisms arise because of random mutations.

I find his ideas interesting. He also shows that there even is a big problem with the definition of species (in the biological sense)

Had I come by this a few years ago, I would probably have quickly rejected it. I remember I was horrified when I learned about the existence of hybrid animals (besides the mule). Even not so distant ones like Liger (male Lion x female Tiger) disgusted me. This was probably because it upset my worldview.

About the aquatic ape theory: I found a website where it is being criticised http://www.aquaticape.org/. Apparently someone took the effort to verify the sources that were cited by the proponents and found that they were cited incorrectly, and that conflicting data of the same sources was ignored.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby patrix on April 21st, 2017, 9:45 pm

Seneca » April 21st, 2017, 5:41 pm wrote:About the aquatic ape theory: I found a website where it is being criticised http://www.aquaticape.org/. Apparently someone took the effort to verify the sources that were cited by the proponents and found that they were cited incorrectly, and that conflicting data of the same sources was ignored.

Thank you. Very interesting but I find the writers objectiveness and neutrality a bit false however:
Unlike some, I really think of -- and treat -- the AAT/H as a theory

and then
The AAT/H, I hope you've seen, suffers a number of problems that render it incredibly unlikely to be true
http://www.aquaticape.org/summary.html

I have no stake in this and might not know enough to have an opinion but I get the feeling that being a supporter of this theory might not be favourable to your career. And this is the primary way they control science. Say the things we want - get grants and promotions. Say what we don't like - Receive no grants and be ruthlessly scrutinized by colleges and get no or bad press. It's that simple. One example is professor Yudkin who got steamrolled by the shill Ancel Keys in the 60s for saying sugar is more of a health problem than saturated fat. Curiously exactly that revelation is surfacing today 50 years later...

So I'm a lot into negative evidence. If it makes sense but are heavily critiqued by the establishment, then the likelihood it's true increases to me. And I would argue that the AAT could just as well be the established theory and that it was instead the Savannah theory that was sawed slightly above the wrists in this manner.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby aa5 on April 22nd, 2017, 3:21 am

Seneca » April 21st, 2017, 8:41 am wrote:The ideas of Eugene McCarthy are also new to me, but I think you are somewhat misinterpreting what he is actually saying. He is not trying to replace or criticise the concept of natural selection.
He is criticising the assertion of (neo) Darwinians that most changes in organisms arise because of random mutations.

I find his ideas interesting. He also shows that there even is a big problem with the definition of species (in the biological sense)

Had I come by this a few years ago, I would probably have quickly rejected it. I remember I was horrified when I learned about the existence of hybrid animals (besides the mule). Even not so distant ones like Liger (male Lion x female Tiger) disgusted me. This was probably because it upset my worldview.

About the aquatic ape theory: I found a website where it is being criticised http://www.aquaticape.org/. Apparently someone took the effort to verify the sources that were cited by the proponents and found that they were cited incorrectly, and that conflicting data of the same sources was ignored.


I had a similar reaction at first, the hybrid animals frightened/made me feel uncomfortable. I realized as you did that it wasn't that there is actually anything about the hybrid animals that was making me feel that way, but instead the discomfort as my brain grappled with a new idea that changed my understanding in an area.

I suspect this emotional response is big reason humans block out any arguments contrary to what they believe. Like it seems strange often how otherwise intelligent people will cling to idiotic stories they were taught as children, finding the slightest and weakest reasons to dismiss contrary arguments.

Evolution in general is a highly emotionally charged area, because if fully accepted it challenges most peoples beliefs in areas like religion, politics, society, romance, etc. And people mainly believe whatever it is they want to believe.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 180
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby Seneca on April 22nd, 2017, 10:44 am

patrix » 21 Apr 2017, 22:45 wrote:
Seneca » April 21st, 2017, 5:41 pm wrote:About the aquatic ape theory: I found a website where it is being criticised http://www.aquaticape.org/. Apparently someone took the effort to verify the sources that were cited by the proponents and found that they were cited incorrectly, and that conflicting data of the same sources was ignored.

Thank you. Very interesting but I find the writers objectiveness and neutrality a bit false however:
Unlike some, I really think of -- and treat -- the AAT/H as a theory

and then
The AAT/H, I hope you've seen, suffers a number of problems that render it incredibly unlikely to be true
http://www.aquaticape.org/summary.html


Can you show where the website is not objective or neutral? Your 2 quotes only show that he seems to have actually considered the theory. That was my conclusion and is why I mentioned this particular website, there are lots of others that just reject the aquatic ape theory without real arguments.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests