RE: Is biological evolution a ball rolling up a hill all by itself?

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Is biological evolution a ball rolling up a hill all by itself?

gavvet (78) in evolution • 7 years ago

It would be a lot faster if the evolutionist was a bacteria... but then the light bulb would be screwed in by successive generations of the bacterium's descendants.

evolution

7 years ago by gavvet (78)

$0.05

1 vote

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

chi.rho (36) · 7 years ago

DEVOLUTION IS EVOLUTION TOO

Whatever veracity there is in pointing to a subsystem as evidence for the dynamic that caused the system, there is no less veracity in pointing to the system as evidence for the dynamic that caused the super-system. That is to say, your notion that eating validates evolution is logically equivalent to the notion that man validates God.

What is missed in all of these evermore common and oddly framed "issues", all of which leave us peasants incessantly belittling each other, is their origin and purpose. For those who remain genuinely oblivious in that regard, just ask yourself with whom their one allowable (sociallly acceptable) position is perfectly aligned, always and everywhere.

What is proselytized under the banner of "Evolution" is no more about biological changes than "Global Warming" is about temperature changes. Both are political, not scientific. The one has nothing to do with a fossil record in which species inexplicable and suddenly vanish and reappear with hundreds of millions of years stasis and gaps, nor with the quantized quaternary chemical code proven to design all form, function and intelligence of all life forms in all of creation. And the other has nothing to do with temperature trends of a planet recovering from her most recent of many Ice Ages. For a hint to a clue, those who do NOT deny the latter are maligned as "deniers", notably by political activists not by scientists, with evermore calls for criminalizing heretics who question the state's political dogma.

What I'm saying is that the 1st world mind has been hacked by its merciless political hustlers. Reality isn't a two party system. Science isn't "settled". And "denier" is NOT scientific lingo. Don't blindly follow the political psychopaths' siren songs. Theory B is in no way validated by the idiocy of Theory A. Rethink everything the authority figures proselytize to everyone over their entire lives. That includes all the reference points and metrics subtly proffered thereof. EVERYTHING.

$0.12

2 votes

[-]

gavvet (78) · 7 years ago (edited)

pointing to a subsystem as evidence for the dynamic that caused the system, there is no less veracity in pointing to the system as evidence for the dynamic that caused the super-system. That is to say, your notion that eating validates evolution is logically equivalent to the notion that man validates God.

I suspect you missed the point of the example.

This was the point.

There is a way however for entropy to decrease and for a system to become more complex. For this to occur the system needs to be an open system. Energy needs to be able to flow into and out of the system, work also need to be done within the system. Life makes use of many open systems, that all do work, they are all around us.

We can observe this in something we do everyday, when we eat.

Its not evidence, just a process, that is more familiar, that operates on similar principles of thermodynamics.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

michaeltzu (33) · 7 years ago

So the universe is an open system then? Surely an open system cannot have a beginning? Cannot be closed one end and open the other. Infinity is not uni-directional. So are you saying there was not a Big Bang that started the ball rolling uphill? Just asking?

$0.00