CDZ Another "Evolution" Question

[there4eyeM]

Statistical probability is, one would think, "normal", part of the universe. It is no defense of "fetishes" or any practice to point out that they are part of humanity and need to be dealt with accordingly, not as theological issues. "Good" and "evil" have no constructive place in such a debate. What is harmful, what the majority will put up with, what the prevailing power will allow is the issue. We repress certain religious practices despite the First Amendment, and rightly so. It is up to thinking people to decide rationally what their society will look like. Doing so based on simple emotion just continues the problems that have plagued us since organized society began.

 

[Mac1958]

There are people who don't want to believe life exists elsewhere, and their reasons are clear. But for anyone to say with certainty that it does not, is narcissistic delusion in the extreme.

The same is true for people who say with certainty that it does.

If anyone says that, sure. But when a scientist says it, they say it's likely due to sheer numbers and probability. You won't see a scientist say it's a certainty.

So it comes down to faith and belief, not fact.
.

 

[TNHarley]

Rarely do i see anyone consider the possibility that Earth houses the first life in the Universe.

And there is also no reason at all for assuming it exists anywhere else but here.

I dont assume, i question.
I do however think its silly to ignore the possibility.

The possibility can be noted, and then it can be dismissed as highly unlikely. That isn't 'ignoring' it. Probability isn't empirical science, it's guessing; just because something might 'possibly exist', doesn't mean it does.

Did the universe you perceive change any when yet another day passed without other life being found?

Why "highly unlikely?"

 

[evenflow1969]

I am not opposed to the theory of evolution or any other scientific inquiry, but I was pondering the fact that we have not discovered any evidence of life on other planets in our solar system. It seems curious that truly spontaneous life would be so limited to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth. In addition, it appears probable that at least 99.99% of the universe is utterly devoid of any life forms. What does this say about the Big Bang theory? Was an inevitable development of life built into this process, or is it a unique response to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth?

We have recently found fossile forms of bacteria in metiorites found in india. Thats the smoking gun for me! Also we have liquid geysers on a moon in our soloar system. Likely to find some bigger life on that moon!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I should live long enough, but when we find coral, jellyfish, octopus and shrimps in the seas of Europa I want to revisit this stupid idea of "Evolution". If it's "true", then there are no odds at all that the same types of creatures should develop on 2 separate worlds. It should be mathematically impossible, it's a number with 100,000 zeros to 1, that "Random mutations" evolved similar creatures.

But if there's an intelligence behind creation, that would be a more reasonable explanation

Authoritarian Irrationalism

It's the intelligence of the individual organism that developed it. What drives you to desperately turn every answer into a Higher Power? That makes you an enemy of individualism.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I should live long enough, but when we find coral, jellyfish, octopus and shrimps in the seas of Europa I want to revisit this stupid idea of "Evolution". If it's "true", then there are no odds at all that the same types of creatures should develop on 2 separate worlds. It should be mathematically impossible, it's a number with 100,000 zeros to 1, that "Random mutations" evolved similar creatures.

But if there's an intelligence behind creation, that would be a more reasonable explanation

Mutations are themselves highly unlikely to be beneficial; it would be an extremely rare thing, and that makes the odds far more improbable. Mutations are harmful the vast bulk of the time.

No Paid Writer Is Smart Enough to See a Third Way

In ancient and in prehistoric societies, mutant babies were left out to die.
Evolution comes from groups or individuals within them, not from some superstition that comforts the unfit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I should live long enough, but when we find coral, jellyfish, octopus and shrimps in the seas of Europa I want to revisit this stupid idea of "Evolution". If it's "true", then there are no odds at all that the same types of creatures should develop on 2 separate worlds. It should be mathematically impossible, it's a number with 100,000 zeros to 1, that "Random mutations" evolved similar creatures.

But if there's an intelligence behind creation, that would be a more reasonable explanation

Authoritarian Irrationalism

It's the intelligence of the individual organism that developed it. What drives you to desperately turn every answer into a Higher Power? That makes you an enemy of individualism.

So, to be clear, you're saying that the same "intelligence" of the individual organisms is what causes similar creatures to evolve on 2 separate worlds. Is that right?

 

[Picaro]

Statistical probability is, one would think, "normal", part of the universe. It is no defense of "fetishes" or any practice to point out that they are part of humanity and need to be dealt with accordingly, not as theological issues. "Good" and "evil" have no constructive place in such a debate. What is harmful, what the majority will put up with, what the prevailing power will allow is the issue. We repress certain religious practices despite the First Amendment, and rightly so. It is up to thinking people to decide rationally what their society will look like. Doing so based on simple emotion just continues the problems that have plagued us since organized society began.

Well, you keep assuming the only issue with homosexuals is 'theological'; I guess the brainwashing is just too deep to ignore in some people. I never cit'e religous' reasons for pointing out they're sickos and public health menaces, as well as being a demographic that rapes children in massive numbers relative to their being 1%-2% of the population. There is zero rational reason to 'tolerate' them and make their neurotic behavior a ridiculous political issue, and then via the magic of circular reasoning then absurdly proclaim Da Evul Xians now can''t say anything about it now that it's 'political n stuff'.

The fact is pastors have the same rights of free speech, and Xians the same rights of freedom of assembly as anybody else, and they can talk all day every day about whatever they want. The Commies can just get over it, or move to a more Commie suitable country.

 

[Picaro]

Rarely do i see anyone consider the possibility that Earth houses the first life in the Universe.

And there is also no reason at all for assuming it exists anywhere else but here.

I dont assume, i question.
I do however think its silly to ignore the possibility.

The possibility can be noted, and then it can be dismissed as highly unlikely. That isn't 'ignoring' it. Probability isn't empirical science, it's guessing; just because something might 'possibly exist', doesn't mean it does.

Did the universe you perceive change any when yet another day passed without other life being found?

Why "highly unlikely?"

Yes, zero chance is just as good an answer, too. So far all the evidence points to zero, so you're right.

 

[Picaro]

I should live long enough, but when we find coral, jellyfish, octopus and shrimps in the seas of Europa I want to revisit this stupid idea of "Evolution". If it's "true", then there are no odds at all that the same types of creatures should develop on 2 separate worlds. It should be mathematically impossible, it's a number with 100,000 zeros to 1, that "Random mutations" evolved similar creatures.

But if there's an intelligence behind creation, that would be a more reasonable explanation

Mutations are themselves highly unlikely to be beneficial; it would be an extremely rare thing, and that makes the odds far more improbable. Mutations are harmful the vast bulk of the time.

No Paid Writer Is Smart Enough to See a Third Way

In ancient and in prehistoric societies, mutant babies were left out to die.
Evolution comes from groups or individuals within them, not from some superstition that comforts the unfit.

It doesn't come from random mutations, either. Some people here obviously think adaptation is the same thing as mutation, for some reason, probably because they need 'evolution' to be thought of as 'science' in order to further a political or racist ideological agenda of some sort or another. That is in fact what happened when Darwin published his theories.

 

[there4eyeM]

My only "assumption" was that posters here could read and understand English. How ridiculous of me!

 

[TNHarley]

Rarely do i see anyone consider the possibility that Earth houses the first life in the Universe.

And there is also no reason at all for assuming it exists anywhere else but here.

I dont assume, i question.
I do however think its silly to ignore the possibility.

The possibility can be noted, and then it can be dismissed as highly unlikely. That isn't 'ignoring' it. Probability isn't empirical science, it's guessing; just because something might 'possibly exist', doesn't mean it does.

Did the universe you perceive change any when yet another day passed without other life being found?

Why "highly unlikely?"

Yes, zero chance is just as good an answer, too. So far all the evidence points to zero, so you're right.

I wont argue that. We dont have "evidence"
We dont have "evidence" of a lot of things...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I should live long enough, but when we find coral, jellyfish, octopus and shrimps in the seas of Europa I want to revisit this stupid idea of "Evolution". If it's "true", then there are no odds at all that the same types of creatures should develop on 2 separate worlds. It should be mathematically impossible, it's a number with 100,000 zeros to 1, that "Random mutations" evolved similar creatures.

But if there's an intelligence behind creation, that would be a more reasonable explanation

Authoritarian Irrationalism

It's the intelligence of the individual organism that developed it. What drives you to desperately turn every answer into a Higher Power? That makes you an enemy of individualism.

So, to be clear, you're saying that the same "intelligence" of the individual organisms is what causes similar creatures to evolve on 2 separate worlds. Is that right?

Chance Is Not a God

Intelligence means "choosing between" (interselection). There are different choices in different worlds.

Better than controlled intelligence is creativity, which thinks up choices beyond what is given. Low-IQs today attach themselves to one band of the specious spectrum, because that magic wand is all they've been offered by ruling-class mind control.

 

[Syriusly]

I am not opposed to the theory of evolution or any other scientific inquiry, but I was pondering the fact that we have not discovered any evidence of life on other planets in our solar system. It seems curious that truly spontaneous life would be so limited to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth. In addition, it appears probable that at least 99.99% of the universe is utterly devoid of any life forms. What does this say about the Big Bang theory? Was an inevitable development of life built into this process, or is it a unique response to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth?

You don't seem to understand the theory of evolution.

You don't seem to understand my post.

Perhaps I don't.

Here is my interpretation of what you said:
The title of the thread is 'Evolution"- hence the discussion is about 'evolution'.
You are implying that since we have not found any evidence of life on other planets that may invalidate the theory of evolution. Implying that you think that the Theory of Evolution is about how initial life is formed on a planet- which it isn't.

 

[Picaro]

And there is also no reason at all for assuming it exists anywhere else but here.

I dont assume, i question.
I do however think its silly to ignore the possibility.

The possibility can be noted, and then it can be dismissed as highly unlikely. That isn't 'ignoring' it. Probability isn't empirical science, it's guessing; just because something might 'possibly exist', doesn't mean it does.

Did the universe you perceive change any when yet another day passed without other life being found?

Why "highly unlikely?"

Yes, zero chance is just as good an answer, too. So far all the evidence points to zero, so you're right.

I wont argue that. We dont have "evidence"
We dont have "evidence" of a lot of things...

Of course not. So now, the issue becomes one of why some people just can't make it through the day without some fabricated fantasy, claim it's 'science', and then proceed to mock the religious people for their alleged 'fantasies'?

It's obvious the 'rationalists' are the more emotionally disturbed in that regard, while the most advanced of the theologies is so clearly a far superior construct when it comes to social, legal, cultural, and emotional stability than paganism or the Commies and their 'constructivist rationalism' or the 'libertarians' and their plain old fashioned worship of mindless self-indulgence as a guiding philosophy. The vast majority of the latter seem to stop evolving emotionally at around age 10-12.

Anybody else ever note the idiotic mentality of the 1960's 'radicals', stoners, and hippies, et al, of worshipping asshat narcissistic rock stars as if they were the natural 'leaders' of Da 'Revolution or something, despite the obvious fact they were nearly all the most selfish and stupid of the entire generation, craved nothing but wealth and status, using people, especially women and underage girls, cruelly and then tossing them out, all that good stuff modern Democrats think is grand now?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am not opposed to the theory of evolution or any other scientific inquiry, but I was pondering the fact that we have not discovered any evidence of life on other planets in our solar system. It seems curious that truly spontaneous life would be so limited to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth. In addition, it appears probable that at least 99.99% of the universe is utterly devoid of any life forms. What does this say about the Big Bang theory? Was an inevitable development of life built into this process, or is it a unique response to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth?

You don't seem to understand the theory of evolution.

You don't seem to understand my post.

And understandably so – given the fact your post has nothing to do with evolution, yet you mention evolution in both your thread title and post.

Yes, it is quite possible that life exists only on Earth, nowhere else in the universe, because of Earth’s unique circumstances, where evolution is the process which allows life to exist on Earth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I dont assume, i question.
I do however think its silly to ignore the possibility.

The possibility can be noted, and then it can be dismissed as highly unlikely. That isn't 'ignoring' it. Probability isn't empirical science, it's guessing; just because something might 'possibly exist', doesn't mean it does.

Did the universe you perceive change any when yet another day passed without other life being found?

Why "highly unlikely?"

Yes, zero chance is just as good an answer, too. So far all the evidence points to zero, so you're right.

I wont argue that. We dont have "evidence"
We dont have "evidence" of a lot of things...

Of course not. So now, the issue becomes one of why some people just can't make it through the day without some fabricated fantasy, claim it's 'science', and then proceed to mock the religious people for their alleged 'fantasies'?

It's obvious the 'rationalists' are the more emotionally disturbed in that regard, while the most advanced of the theologies is so clearly a far superior construct when it comes to social, legal, cultural, and emotional stability than paganism or the Commies and their 'constructivist rationalism' or the 'libertarians' and their plain old fashioned worship of mindless self-indulgence as a guiding philosophy. The vast majority of the latter seem to stop evolving emotionally at around age 10-12.

Anybody else ever note the idiotic mentality of the 1960's 'radicals', stoners, and hippies, et al, of worshipping asshat narcissistic rock stars as if they were the natural 'leaders' of Da 'Revolution or something, despite the obvious fact they were nearly all the most selfish and stupid of the entire generation, craved nothing but wealth and status, using people, especially women and underage girls, cruelly and then tossing them out, all that good stuff modern Democrats think is grand now?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

 

[Syriusly]

Statistical probability is, one would think, "normal", part of the universe. It is no defense of "fetishes" or any practice to point out that they are part of humanity and need to be dealt with accordingly, not as theological issues. "Good" and "evil" have no constructive place in such a debate. What is harmful, what the majority will put up with, what the prevailing power will allow is the issue. We repress certain religious practices despite the First Amendment, and rightly so. It is up to thinking people to decide rationally what their society will look like. Doing so based on simple emotion just continues the problems that have plagued us since organized society began.

. I never cit'e religous' reasons for pointing out they're sickos and public health menaces, as well as being a demographic that rapes children in massive numbers relative to their being 1%-2% of the population.

No- you just cite the usual litany of homophobic lies.

Let us first talk about the 1% to 2% of the population. Where does that number come from? From surveys- from Kinsey on- where people are asked about whether they are homosexuals or not. The range of course is huge- and varied- but typically have produced a statistical range of 1.2[4] to 6.8[6] percent of the adult population identifying as LGBT- and remember- this is self identifying- this is people saying- yes- I am a homosexual. Presuming that half of those are men- lets round that to .6% to 3.4% of the population of men self identify as gay.

Now lets look at the tragic numbers of child molestations. Girls are by a large majority more likely to be molested/raped as children than boys-possibly between 69%-91% of all molestations are of girls
https://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

So reversing the numbers- boys are the molestation victims between 31% to 9% of the time.

Men are are by a huge majority the molesters. So are all the boys molested by 'homosexuals'? Here is where you bigots go with the big lie. You will claim that the number of gay men is low- using numbers where men identify themselves as 'gay'- but then label any man who molests a boy as 'gay'.

The fact is that men who molest kids- can be straight or gay in orientation to adults. Most of the men who molest boys self identify as straight.
Why is this important? Because those men would not be in that 1-2% you claim.
What kind of men?
Jerry Sandusky- married and a father- no record of any same gender sex with adults- only with raping boys.
Dennis Hastert- again- married and a father- no record of any same gender sex with men- but molested boys.
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

So there is no actual quantifiable evidence that 'gay men' molest children more than the population.

BUT- and here is the important But- men do.

Bigots like yourself often like to attack gays as being molesters- but the fact is that men- as a whole- are vastly more likely to sexually abuse a child- any child- than women.

Where are your attacks against men- against all of us men- for sexual attacks on children?

It will never happen. Factually lesbians are less likely to sexually abuse any child- than any group of men- straight or gay.

Somehow I don't think that will lead you to commending lesbians and condemning all men.

 

[Leo123]

I'm not ready to declare the universe devoid of life because living organisms exist in areas here on Earth with conditions pretty close to some planets. Also, the universe appears to be mostly uncharted because our perception of it is so small let alone, we also have no idea how big it is, where it is and even what it mostly consists of. Heck NASA found evidence of liquid water flows and ground water-ice on Mars.

 

[Picaro]

Statistical probability is, one would think, "normal", part of the universe. It is no defense of "fetishes" or any practice to point out that they are part of humanity and need to be dealt with accordingly, not as theological issues. "Good" and "evil" have no constructive place in such a debate. What is harmful, what the majority will put up with, what the prevailing power will allow is the issue. We repress certain religious practices despite the First Amendment, and rightly so. It is up to thinking people to decide rationally what their society will look like. Doing so based on simple emotion just continues the problems that have plagued us since organized society began.

. I never cit'e religous' reasons for pointing out they're sickos and public health menaces, as well as being a demographic that rapes children in massive numbers relative to their being 1%-2% of the population.

No- you just cite the usual litany of homophobic lies.

Let us first talk about the 1% to 2% of the population. Where does that number come from? From surveys- from Kinsey on- where people are asked about whether they are homosexuals or not. The range of course is huge- and varied- but typically have produced a statistical range of 1.2[4] to 6.8[6] percent of the adult population identifying as LGBT- and remember- this is self identifying- this is people saying- yes- I am a homosexual. Presuming that half of those are men- lets round that to .6% to 3.4% of the population of men self identify as gay.

Now lets look at the tragic numbers of child molestations. Girls are by a large majority more likely to be molested/raped as children than boys-possibly between 69%-91% of all molestations are of girls
https://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

So reversing the numbers- boys are the molestation victims between 31% to 9% of the time.

Men are are by a huge majority the molesters. So are all the boys molested by 'homosexuals'? Here is where you bigots go with the big lie. You will claim that the number of gay men is low- using numbers where men identify themselves as 'gay'- but then label any man who molests a boy as 'gay'.

The fact is that men who molest kids- can be straight or gay in orientation to adults. Most of the men who molest boys self identify as straight.
Why is this important? Because those men would not be in that 1-2% you claim.
What kind of men?
Jerry Sandusky- married and a father- no record of any same gender sex with adults- only with raping boys.
Dennis Hastert- again- married and a father- no record of any same gender sex with men- but molested boys.
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

So there is no actual quantifiable evidence that 'gay men' molest children more than the population.

BUT- and here is the important But- men do.

Bigots like yourself often like to attack gays as being molesters- but the fact is that men- as a whole- are vastly more likely to sexually abuse a child- any child- than women.

Where are your attacks against men- against all of us men- for sexual attacks on children?

It will never happen. Factually lesbians are less likely to sexually abuse any child- than any group of men- straight or gay.

Somehow I don't think that will lead you to commending lesbians and condemning all men.

Of course, anybody still citing the proven faked data from the ancient Kinsey reports is just regurgitating rubbish, not science, no need to read further.