1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Reality of Evolution

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
16 April 2018 19:53
 

Okay, this should be a good one, so don’t just read, comment as well. This will be arguing against natural selection as a factor of evolution. I should express my understanding of assumptions forced on you by this argument, but I promise this is very different from what you’ve experienced, and I’m betting you will enjoy what I refer to as “clicks”, which I define as flashes of understanding, referring to the moment something makes sense, with little to no thought, because it simply clicks.

There’s a very deep foundation that needs to be made, but I’m only going to gloss over it. A few different subjects need to be covered to help you understand, but you don’t need a full understanding of the subjects themselves.

First, I’ll start with a factor that isn’t fully understood by anyone; Gravity.
      For this to make sense, you only need to understand that Einstein was able to prove gravity is the universe pushing, rather than the earth pulling. A sensible analogy would be an air bubble floating in water. The water keeps the air together in the shape of a sphere, while it forces it’s way through the water. This analogy helps to understand gravity in ways beyond first glance. The earth forces space out of it’s way, causing what has been illustrated as a ripple effect around the earth, which is a visual representation of gravity itself. As earth pushes space out of the way, debris from exploded stars, particles, etcetera, become attached to the planet. A cosmic snowball effect in a sense.

Second, I’ll explain the main factor of evolution, which is easier to get your head around; Diet
      What you eat is the driving aspect of evolution, and how we cut ourselves off from evolution. The subject here is the development of immune systems. The view is through the circle of life, instead of the food chain. When we die, our bodies, and immunities, should be absorbed into the ground, for plants to use as nutrients, which animals, including humans, eat until they are eaten themselves. Our access to evolution has been severely limited, since religion’s insistence of respect for the dead. Bodies that are buried can’t be absorbed by plants, because roots don’t grow that deep, and bodies that are burned don’t have nutritional value for plants to absorb.

There are more factors, but I hope I’ve illustrated the point. Arguing against natural selection isn’t as difficult as it sounds. Although it is true that natural selection is the governing factor of survival, it is false that the ability to avoid extinction would result in evolution. To clarify, if something is able to survive, it doesn’t need to evolve, since it’s already surviving.

I can keep going, but this should be sufficient. Your goal is to explain how I’m wrong, aaaaand go.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6467
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
17 April 2018 08:04
 
Chaz - 16 April 2018 07:53 PM

When we die, our bodies, and immunities, should be absorbed into the ground, for plants to use as nutrients, which animals, including humans, eat until they are eaten themselves.

Can you explain how an “immunity” is absorbed into the ground, used by plants for nutrients, and then eaten by humans? Are you suggesting that immunities can be passed on from person to person in this way? Does that also work for things like, say, memories? If I eat a plant that was fertilized with my dead grandmother’s brains, will I start remembering things that she experienced?

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1369
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
17 April 2018 08:45
 

Chaz, in a sense, humanity has already given Darwin the middle finger, haven’t we? Also, I suspect that immune systems don’t fair well after death, no matter what.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6564
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
17 April 2018 09:04
 

Yup.  I don’t think phagocytes and lymphocytes survive our deaths.  Or get passed on through dietary intake.

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
17 April 2018 11:30
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 17 April 2018 08:04 AM

Can you explain how an “immunity” is absorbed into the ground, used by plants for nutrients, and then eaten by humans? Are you suggesting that immunities can be passed on from person to person in this way? Does that also work for things like, say, memories? If I eat a plant that was fertilized with my dead grandmother’s brains, will I start remembering things that she experienced?

I loved the start of your comment, but I don’t know how you got to the “How High” movie reference about the dead after ingesting their essence.

Regarding your question about immunities, you have the wrong idea. Immunities being passed along through digestion isn’t what I meant. Immunities are absorbed into the ground with the rest of your decaying body. The immune system is in every fiber of your being, and it changes your body’s chemical composition. And no, nothing works in the way you described.

nonverbal - 17 April 2018 08:45 AM

Chaz, in a sense, humanity has already given Darwin the middle finger, haven’t we? Also, I suspect that immune systems don’t fair well after death, no matter what.

No, it’s going to take a lot to get rid of Darwin.
The immune system doesn’t fair well after our death, but how it changed your body is what matters. Consider the flu, and how flu shots protect you from it. The shots have dead flu virus, to build your immune system against it. I can’t think of a better analogy than that.

Jefe - 17 April 2018 09:04 AM

Yup.  I don’t think phagocytes and lymphocytes survive our deaths.  Or get passed on through dietary intake.

Yeah, they die, but they don’t disappear. You have the wrong idea on that. If you haven’t already noticed, a rotting corpse is perfect for hosting all kinds of life, and is a very high quality fertilizer. Grass doesn’t just absorb the water in the ground, it absorbs everything that it can. Cows eat the grass, we eat the cows, and grass/plants/insects eat us. I mentioned the circle of life, that was supposed to help avoid confusion.

I get the feeling that the slow speed of evolution is being forgotten.

[ Edited: 17 April 2018 11:58 by Chaz]
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6564
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
17 April 2018 12:52
 

There’s a Nobel Prize out there waiting for you if you can provide evidence for you conjectures about immunity and environmental recycling.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1369
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
17 April 2018 13:40
 
Chaz - 17 April 2018 11:30 AM

. . .

No, it’s going to take a lot to get rid of Darwin. . . .

. . .

I wasn’t trying to argue against Darwinian anything. My comment was only metaphorical.

Hope this helps.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6467
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
18 April 2018 07:58
 
Chaz - 17 April 2018 11:30 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 17 April 2018 08:04 AM

Can you explain how an “immunity” is absorbed into the ground, used by plants for nutrients, and then eaten by humans? Are you suggesting that immunities can be passed on from person to person in this way? Does that also work for things like, say, memories? If I eat a plant that was fertilized with my dead grandmother’s brains, will I start remembering things that she experienced?

I loved the start of your comment, but I don’t know how you got to the “How High” movie reference about the dead after ingesting their essence.

Regarding your question about immunities, you have the wrong idea. Immunities being passed along through digestion isn’t what I meant. Immunities are absorbed into the ground with the rest of your decaying body. The immune system is in every fiber of your being, and it changes your body’s chemical composition. And no, nothing works in the way you described.

How do immunities remain immunities as they are absorbed into the ground? And what are the ramifications of such an unlikely process? Does the ground become immune? I mean, what’s your point? Am I feeding a troll here?

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
18 April 2018 10:26
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 April 2018 07:58 AM
Chaz - 17 April 2018 11:30 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 17 April 2018 08:04 AM

Can you explain how an “immunity” is absorbed into the ground, used by plants for nutrients, and then eaten by humans? Are you suggesting that immunities can be passed on from person to person in this way? Does that also work for things like, say, memories? If I eat a plant that was fertilized with my dead grandmother’s brains, will I start remembering things that she experienced?

I loved the start of your comment, but I don’t know how you got to the “How High” movie reference about the dead after ingesting their essence.

Regarding your question about immunities, you have the wrong idea. Immunities being passed along through digestion isn’t what I meant. Immunities are absorbed into the ground with the rest of your decaying body. The immune system is in every fiber of your being, and it changes your body’s chemical composition. And no, nothing works in the way you described.

How do immunities remain immunities as they are absorbed into the ground? And what are the ramifications of such an unlikely process? Does the ground become immune? I mean, what’s your point? Am I feeding a troll here?

Jesus Christ I don’t know how many ways I can say that I wasn’t talking about immunities stay as what they are after you die I’m trying to explain how you dying would be a factor in evolution. Having an immunity to something isn’t something you share it’s from your body adapting to the environment.

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why aren’t you using common sense to try and understand? What the fuck makes you think that you can carry around a suitcase of immunities? cuz that’s the only way these questions make sense.. holy shit someone needs their helmet

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6467
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
18 April 2018 10:52
 
Chaz - 18 April 2018 10:26 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 April 2018 07:58 AM
Chaz - 17 April 2018 11:30 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 17 April 2018 08:04 AM

Can you explain how an “immunity” is absorbed into the ground, used by plants for nutrients, and then eaten by humans? Are you suggesting that immunities can be passed on from person to person in this way? Does that also work for things like, say, memories? If I eat a plant that was fertilized with my dead grandmother’s brains, will I start remembering things that she experienced?

I loved the start of your comment, but I don’t know how you got to the “How High” movie reference about the dead after ingesting their essence.

Regarding your question about immunities, you have the wrong idea. Immunities being passed along through digestion isn’t what I meant. Immunities are absorbed into the ground with the rest of your decaying body. The immune system is in every fiber of your being, and it changes your body’s chemical composition. And no, nothing works in the way you described.

How do immunities remain immunities as they are absorbed into the ground? And what are the ramifications of such an unlikely process? Does the ground become immune? I mean, what’s your point? Am I feeding a troll here?

Jesus Christ I don’t know how many ways I can say that I wasn’t talking about immunities stay as what they are after you die I’m trying to explain how you dying would be a factor in evolution. Having an immunity to something isn’t something you share it’s from your body adapting to the environment.

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why aren’t you using common sense to try and understand? What the fuck makes you think that you can carry around a suitcase of immunities? cuz that’s the only way these questions make sense.. holy shit someone needs their helmet

I still don’t see your point. Connect the dots for me: how does “immunities being absorbed into the ground” support your argument against natural selection as a factor of evolution?

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
18 April 2018 12:00
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 April 2018 10:52 AM


I still don’t see your point. Connect the dots for me: how does “immunities being absorbed into the ground” support your argument against natural selection as a factor of evolution?

The argument I made against natural selection, is that it doesn’t have anything to do with evolution. Survival of the fittest doesn’t improve the species that survive, it’s just a factor of extinction for those that can’t survive.

I’ll give it a fresh attempt. I mentioned the circle of life, which isn’t exclusive to the lion lion king. It just happens to be an actual phenomenon, that seems to be more important to evolution than natural selection. You can move out of this framework, but the simplest way I can explain, is that people spend their entire lives trying to stay alive. The immune system is obviously a result of adapting to the environment for survival. Being immune to something is a full body development, instead of sectional. The immunity is in your skin, your blood, organs, etcetera. When someone dies, technically their body is nothing more than plant food/fertilizer. As your corpse decays, the immunities you develop are still part of you as an organism. Mold, fungi, insects, plants, trees, everything that devours your body after you’re dead is devouring the adaptations you developed while alive, which makes it a part of their being, which they have to adapt to until they die and everything feasts on their corpse which includes the adaptations they developed.

Did you keep the circle of life in mind? It’s also worth mentioning that the Pareto distribution applies to evolution. Success breeds success, and failure breeds failure.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6467
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
18 April 2018 14:49
 
Chaz - 18 April 2018 12:00 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 April 2018 10:52 AM


I still don’t see your point. Connect the dots for me: how does “immunities being absorbed into the ground” support your argument against natural selection as a factor of evolution?

The argument I made against natural selection, is that it doesn’t have anything to do with evolution. Survival of the fittest doesn’t improve the species that survive, it’s just a factor of extinction for those that can’t survive.

I’ll give it a fresh attempt. I mentioned the circle of life, which isn’t exclusive to the lion lion king. It just happens to be an actual phenomenon, that seems to be more important to evolution than natural selection. You can move out of this framework, but the simplest way I can explain, is that people spend their entire lives trying to stay alive. The immune system is obviously a result of adapting to the environment for survival. Being immune to something is a full body development, instead of sectional. The immunity is in your skin, your blood, organs, etcetera. When someone dies, technically their body is nothing more than plant food/fertilizer. As your corpse decays, the immunities you develop are still part of you as an organism. Mold, fungi, insects, plants, trees, everything that devours your body after you’re dead is devouring the adaptations you developed while alive, which makes it a part of their being, which they have to adapt to until they die and everything feasts on their corpse which includes the adaptations they developed.

Did you keep the circle of life in mind? It’s also worth mentioning that the Pareto distribution applies to evolution. Success breeds success, and failure breeds failure.

I’m having a hard time reconciling what you say above with what you said before:

Chaz - 18 April 2018 10:26 AM

Jesus Christ I don’t know how many ways I can say that I wasn’t talking about immunities stay as what they are after you die. . . .

What exactly does it mean for an immunity to become “a part of their being?”

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1369
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
18 April 2018 15:02
 

ASD, this thread is such low-hanging fruit.

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
18 April 2018 16:07
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 April 2018 02:49 PM


What exactly does it mean for an immunity to become “a part of their being?”

You are what you eat.. when referring to immunities, exclusively in this thread, I’m not talking about something physical, which should be obvious, as an immunity isn’t something you have, it’s something you are. When I was a kid I got into some poison ivy and ate some of it. The result of ingesting some made me immune to it. I can roll around in it naked, and have zero consequences for it. Being immune to poison ivy is something I am, not something I have.

Maybe this hypothetical will help. If I was to go camping in the woods, I could end up dead, like falling and landing on my head breaking my neck. It would be possible to be surrounded by poison ivy, that would absorb whatever nutrients the rain washed off my corpse into the ground, making me fertilizer for the nurishment of the poison ivy. Becoming food for poison ivy with an immunity to it, could result in the poison ivy developing a stronger or even fatal allergy people would have to worry about.

Please don’t start telling me how unlikely that would be, I’m just trying to help you understand what I meant.

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
18 April 2018 17:03
 
nonverbal - 18 April 2018 03:02 PM

ASD, this thread is such low-hanging fruit.

I thought I posted a reply to your last comment, but I don’t see it. It said I could tell you were joking about Darwin, but I didn’t want to ignore the question.

I haven’t mentioned this to you, I don’t think, but I deliberately change the arguments to encourage disagreement with me. My favorite game is devil’s advocate. This thread, specifically, didn’t refute natural selection until I decided to post it. I didn’t have the bit about the immune system either, which is probably why I failed to present it properly.

It’s low hanging fruit on purpose to encourage dialogue. However, I would like to know what makes you think it’s low hanging fruit without me telling you it is. Making that statement implies that you’re not engaging the argument because you think it would be too easy. I would like to encourage you to express your view, and this might sound arrogant, but I’ll bet it’s not as easy as you think.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1369
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
18 April 2018 17:29
 
Chaz - 18 April 2018 05:03 PM
nonverbal - 18 April 2018 03:02 PM

ASD, this thread is such low-hanging fruit.

I thought I posted a reply to your last comment, but I don’t see it. It said I could tell you were joking about Darwin, but I didn’t want to ignore the question.

I haven’t mentioned this to you, I don’t think, but I deliberately change the arguments to encourage disagreement with me. My favorite game is devil’s advocate. This thread, specifically, didn’t refute natural selection until I decided to post it. I didn’t have the bit about the immune system either, which is probably why I failed to present it properly.

It’s low hanging fruit on purpose to encourage dialogue. However, I would like to know what makes you think it’s low hanging fruit without me telling you it is. Making that statement implies that you’re not engaging the argument because you think it would be too easy. I would like to encourage you to express your view, and this might sound arrogant, but I’ll bet it’s not as easy as you think.

Sorry, Chaz. What’s low-hanging fruit to me is something very different to you, and I have no intention of mocking your stuff—just commenting honestly and frankly. If I insulted you, I didn’t mean to.

Whenever we take it upon ourselves to visit a health facility, especially if it includes surgical services, it’s in a sense (yes, a crazy sense, admittedly, but also entirely real) an affront to natural selection. That is to say, we tend to choose medical interventions rather than just up and failing. We smartly choose not to wait patiently for Darwinian processes to catch up to our hypertensions, hernias, heart murmurs, etc., etc. to finish us off, as we’ve got plenty of nonsense yet to accomplish.

Darwin no longer has much to do with how long individuals live, but of course descent-with-modification remains to this day a subtle but real influence on humanity’s biological progress.

[ Edited: 18 April 2018 17:32 by nonverbal]
 
 1 2 3 >