3 best disproofs of evolution

[gamila]

3 best disproofs of evolution

in the 1800s westerners believed they where more evolved that african natives
western man ie european believed they were higher up the evolutionary ladder than primitive culture-defined by them as primitive

this was no more than a european bias and self serving belief
now we still have this biased term still hanging around in biology

evolution is a biased term it could easily be argued that we dont have evolution but instead devolution
evolution is a human concept it is a bit arrogant to think that nature fits our human concepts

take the human concepts in which evolution is couched ie species and phylum
again it is a bit arrogant to think that nature fits our concepts

an octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts
but nevertheless

3 best disproofs of evolution
you all talk about evolution in terms of species and phylum

but no ones knows what a species or phylum is
so all this talk about evolution of species/phylum is meaningless nonsense

1)scientists cannot tell us what a species is

quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"

2)scientists cannot tell us what a r phylum is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum

"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"

with out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about evolution/devolution then he is talking meaningless nonsense as he cant locate exaclty just what has evolded/devoled

The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox
3)who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate with

an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species


either

1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work

[JackBean]

Wasn't this all everything here already? It's kind of spam, isn't it?

But anyway, about the last part. The evolution is consequent process. You don't just get now new species B, which never before occured.
Instead, you have species A, which slowly changes, e.g. in one isolated area. In this area, some mutations (read quality/feature) is prefered due to enviroment. This is how subspecies arise and when these subspecies are too different, they just become two independent species.

Anyway, all the classifications and definitions and everything are just human-made, but that doesn't mean, that it kind of describes the nature and unless you don't have better description, be silent. If you have one, why don't we and all people around the world know it?

[gamila]

you say

But anyway, about the last part. The evolution is consequent process.

but
evolution is a biased term it could easily be argued that we dont have evolution but instead devolution
evolution is a human concept it is a bit arrogant to think that nature fits our human concepts

take the human concepts in which evolution is couched ie species and phylum
again it is a bit arrogant to think that nature fits our concepts

an octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts

[JackBean]

You got it a little messed

Anyway, we don't want nature to fit our concept, but we are trying to fit our concept to the nature, but as you are obviously not scientist, you will never understand...

[gamila]

you say

Anyway, we don't want nature to fit our concept, but we are trying to fit our concept to the nature, but as you are obviously not scientist, you will never understand..

but
the biologist like the westerner of later centuries is both arrogant and ethonocentric-he sees the world through his man man arbitary and conventional language games

in the 1800s westerners believed they where more evolved that african natives
western man ie european believed they were higher up the evolutionary ladder than primitive culture-defined by them as primitive

this was no more than a european bias and self serving belief
now we still have this biased term still hanging around in biology

an octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts

[biohazard]

don't feed the troll.

[JackBean]

[gamila]

you say

don't feed the troll.

ad hominums always indicate an intellectually challanged person a person that cant deal with the issue

the biologist like the westerner of later centuries is both arrogant and ethonocentric-he sees the world through his man man arbitary and conventional language games

in the 1800s westerners believed they where more evolved that african natives
western man ie european believed they were higher up the evolutionary ladder than primitive culture-defined by them as primitive

this was no more than a european bias and self serving belief
now we still have this biased term still hanging around in biology

an octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts

[Dougalbod]

you say

an octopus with a different perceptual system would probably have a different idea about evolution and a whole lot of different concepts

The octopus, assuming it was a scientific octopus, would have the same understanding of population growth as we do, after all we can observe and measure populations. He/she/it would have the same understanding of genetics, again it's an observable measurable process. He/she/it would be able to measure/observe the effect of limited resources on populations and eventually a talented octupus would put all this together to come up with a theory of evolution through natural selection... it's just observation, measurement and logic. Of course he would write it in octopus language which I guess might sound different to human language.

Dougal

[gamila]

you say

The octopus, assuming it was a scientific octopus, would have the same understanding of population growth as we do,

nothing but an ethnocentric comment

that is like a 1800s european saying that if a primitive african was cultured he would eat with a napkin
take the term scientific

there is much debete about there not being a scientific method thus there being nothing scientific

you cant even see how your cultures language games constructs your view of the world
and that of the octopuses view

you seem to think your indo-european langauge games is the epistemic tool to understand the universe- such arrogance

[JackBean]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think, that repeating one post (or just some parts) all the time again and again is actually spam, isn't it? Maybe stuff for moderators?

[gamila]

you say

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think, that repeating one post (or just some parts) all the time again and again is actually spam, isn't it? Maybe stuff for moderators?

are you that threatened by these ideas that you like medieval theologians you want the heetic silenced
or
are you really showing you are intellectually challanged by this post