Thread: Origin of the Supernatural

Is religion really the origin of the supernatural?
Superman, Harry Potter, conjuring tricks or whatever, all appear to owe their inspiration to religion.
Take Buddha:
He was described as a superhuman organ of light to whom a superhuman organ of darkness (Mara or evil serpent) was opposed.
He rose in the air, cut his body into pieces, let his head and limbs fall to the ground, but reassembled them again. The crowd were amazed!
He travelled to far off places in an instant; he gave his flesh to man-eating demons; he descended from heaven by a miraculous stairway. Like Christ he was transfigured ie. baptized with fire.
The primordial Buddha (Gans-can mtsho) had the universe in his hands and controlled its 25 levels. At his miraculous birth the earth trembled and light shone from his body.
Take Naropa (the Tibetan buddhist saint from Bengal):
He heard a voice from the sky and the earth trembled.
He stumbled on a leper woman who rose in the air in a rainbow halo. This turned out to be non other than his guru Tilopa.
He turned metal into butter.
He was bathed in a sphere of brilliant light.
Take Milarepa (the Tibetan buddhist saint):
He induced hailstorms in order to slay his enemies.
He had the power of miraculous flight.
He could levitate through fasting.
He had his own version of the labours of Hercules (a solar myth).
Take Jesus Christ:
He was the sun of righteousness opposed by the old serpent (Satan).
As a miracle worker he won followers.
He cured lunatics by casting out demons (even into swine).
He exorcised evil spirits from people desperate for cures.
He was raised from the dead and transfigured.
He walked on water; he turned water into wine.
In Matthew 27:52 we find that: The earth trembled and tombs were opened and dead saints were raised who went into the holy city to appear to many (Ghost stories don't get any better than this).
Also, St Joseph of Cupertino rose into the air and from the middle of the church flew like a bird on to the high altar where he embraced the tabernacle.
Take Mohammed:
He had power over desert spirits.
He could split the orb of the moon.
Trees went out to meet him; he was saluted by stones; water gushed from his fingers.
He cured the sick and raised the dead.
The mysterious beast Borak conveyed him from Mecca to Jerusalem and back.
He flew on a magic carpet.
With Gabriel he ascended the 7 heavens.
Like the followers of Mithra, Brahmins and early Christians, his followers turn to the east and the rising sun.

So what is the correct interpretation of all this?

It is easier to believe in miracles and pseudoscience than to acquire facts and engage in incisive rational thought.

Ancient peoples believed only in a geocentric world. They knew nothing about the heliocentric solar system and the tilted earth.
Diseases were caused by evil spirits and some of these maladies were exacerbated by the decreasing sun as it approached the winter solstice. The suicidal tendency of people in northern climes in November and December is appeased by the new born sun in January and February.
Magic is always accompanied by darkness and sorcery.
All gods are nothing but different powers of the sun whose fables are documented in the lives of Buddha and Christ among many others. Mystical enlightenment or the saviour being the light of the world is no more than a reference to the sun. The early Christians worshipped the sun god Serapis, and all saviours and gurus sit on a sun throne and are bathed in radiant light.
So all Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims are no more than unknowing sun-worshippers. The real miracle from which all the supernatural is derived is no more than the return of the sun from the dead at the winter solstice.

I'd be happy to wager that mysticism came well before organised religion.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I'd be happy to wager that mysticism came well before organised religion.

Indeed. The ancient Egyptians, for one.

I also remember hearing something about how neanderthals believed the full moon to be a god of the hunt or something like that. It's probably bologna, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Originally Posted by ox

Is religion really the origin of the supernatural?

What distinction are you making between "religion" and "supernatural?" If they mean the same thing then it doesn't make sense to say that one is the origin of the other. What exactly are you hypothesizing here?

I think our "need" to try explain things is hardly anything new to our species and probably started well before homo sapiens. Before writing and lacking instruments to augment our senses it's not surprise we'd come up with many fanciful stories to explain the world around us and that would be linked to religions many practical uses.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What distinction are you making between "religion" and "supernatural?" If they mean the same thing then it doesn't make sense to say that one is the origin of the other. What exactly are you hypothesizing here?

I am arguing that organised religion has given some sort of strange credibility to the supernatural.
By religion I mean a set of beliefs proposed by a superhuman being which become the subject of ritual practices and which will aid the practitioner in this life and hopefully the next. By the supernatural I mean supposed phenomena which exceed the experience of what is normal in this world and which have no basis in reality.
So when we read that faith leaders and saints levitate or fly we can be sure that no ordinary human is the subject of such a story. So the answer must lie in someone not of this world or someone under the influence of an alien force.
However we find that magical flight was a 'feat' practiced by shamans, and that the worship of heavenly bodies was practiced by pagans, both before the dawn of organised religion.
When 2 inexplicable events occurred simultaneously the ancients could be sure that only the gods were at work there. So if an earth tremor was accompanied by a miraculous birth, or a voice from the sky, or the dead suddenly rising, then this was truly a message from 'above'.
Today however might consider all this to be realm of fiction or pure coincidence.
Carl Jung described the possibility of synchronicity being connected with the subconscious. At the moment of his death there was supposed to have been a massive thunderstorm over Lake Geneva, but my money would be that this was pure coincidence as big thunderstorms are not uncommon in that part of the world.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What distinction are you making between "religion" and "supernatural?" If they mean the same thing then it doesn't make sense to say that one is the origin of the other. What exactly are you hypothesizing here?

I am arguing that organised religion has given some sort of strange credibility to the supernatural.
By religion I mean a set of beliefs proposed by a superhuman being which become the subject of ritual practices and which will aid the practitioner in this life and hopefully the next. By the supernatural I mean supposed phenomena which exceed the experience of what is normal in this world and which have no basis in reality.
So when we read that faith leaders and saints levitate or fly we can be sure that no ordinary human is the subject of such a story. So the answer must lie in someone not of this world or someone under the influence of an alien force.
However we find that magical flight was a 'feat' practiced by shamans, and that the worship of heavenly bodies was practiced by pagans, both before the dawn of organised religion.

You must understand that charlatans have been going around extorting people who lack a unified view of the supernatural for ages. I believe in India, they are called "Dragon Men" because many of them use the simple trick of blowing a highly alcoholic beverage out of their mouth in front of a candle in order to make it appear they have magical abilities.

The goal of creating a unified vision is to consolidate all that extortion into one place so it can be regulated, and then you only have to give tithing to a small group of professionals, and in predictable amounts. (It's similar to the role governments play by extorting a tax, and then hiring police to prevent random criminals from running around and pillaging.)

When 2 inexplicable events occurred simultaneously the ancients could be sure that only the gods were at work there. So if an earth tremor was accompanied by a miraculous birth, or a voice from the sky, or the dead suddenly rising, then this was truly a message from 'above'.
Today however might consider all this to be realm of fiction or pure coincidence.
Carl Jung described the possibility of synchronicity being connected with the subconscious. At the moment of his death there was supposed to have been a massive thunderstorm over Lake Geneva, but my money would be that this was pure coincidence as big thunderstorms are not uncommon in that part of the world.

Yeah, and the storm might have been going on for quite a while before he died, but everyone noticed after he finally passed on, because their attention was no longer diverted toward his struggle to survive. The moment someone notices seems to be the moment it all started happening.

I should have thought that a sense of the supernatural preceded organised religion by several millenia and may even be pre homo sapiens in origin. This appears self evident to me, but I'll present the argument to any doubters.

Originally Posted by ox

Is religion really the origin of the supernatural?

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that religion is the origin of the supernatural. Quite the opposite is evident actually.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I should have thought that a sense of the supernatural preceded organised religion by several millenia and may even be pre homo sapiens in origin. This appears self evident to me, but I'll present the argument to any doubters.

Okay, let's hear it.

Figure this,
It is written in the bible that men cannot seek God. After the fall (Adam) one does not have the inclination to even want to. SO what does this say about the arguement between evolution and creation? It doesn't matter, you can't find God in science or by humanistic religion. Instead he chooses whom he wills, no one chooses him because that would say "I am righteous" and would give bragging rights in heaven if this were the case. imagine people in heaven walking around saying to one another, "I got here because I was good, great, perfect," or some prideful expression. It would be no better than the way the earth is now. Pride will find its place in hell.

there is a bar which no man can reach, one that sets a standard, a level playing field, one that all men must leave their pride at the nearest dump. Human religion, science, so called atheisim, seeking of God, and pride cannot reach this bar. It must be given as a gift and no other way.

Supernatural, that which falls outside of your understanding of your natural surroundings.
Did religion enable us to see the night sky and give us imagination ? Or to see a chemical reaction for the first time ?
Imagination and the observation of things that exist outside of our understanding originated the supernatural.

things that are seen were made by the things that are unseen.

Science or naturalism was created by the supernatural, Adam had an IQ that no one could compete with today, then he did something stupid and lost it.

reason; Do you ever wonder why we only use a small percentage of our total capability in brain matter? science today can't tell you this...

Scripture gives accounts of people using "science" so called.

in the old testament there are statements to the fact that the earth is round (sphere) by its writers. Adam knew by God it was round.

reason; Do you ever wonder why we only use a small percentage of our total capability in brain matter? science today can't tell you this...

Yes it can: the saying is nonsense. You use all of your brain, just not all at once.

I guess someone has to start this sometime: lot2do, do you have any evidence for your assertions? The Bible isn't evidence...

Then if the bible is not evidence then understanding of the universe is of no use.

Adam in one day; named every animal on the planet, had surgery, and got married and named his wife all in one day.

adam and eve lost something when they ate. then the Flood further confounded our bodies to the state we are in now.

this had to do with Oxygen, and the Holy Spirit. How can these two be together in science?

can I force you to eat brussel sprouts, when you want chocolate cake? I can prove to you nothing. God must appeal to you for you to believe. until then, I won't, If you want guidance in this matter; ask it of him I cannot provide.

Well then lot2do, I am sure you realise that you are on a science forum. What you are presenting as truth is decidedly not science or scientific and you have no legitimate reason to claim truth. Wishful thinking is not a very reliable guide to the truth, is it? So then the question is: Why are you pontificating to us?

minus the pontification, (Which is not biblical) And the Catholic church is not the church at all, but a cult.

my truth and your truth are two different things, Your evolution is most definately not science, but religion. (theory taught as fact) forced upon people, and schools. Teachers are fired from their jobs because they don't teach evo. Students are given failing grades because they oppose evolution. If you want to know about the origin of the things unseen, I'll surely offend you.

I'm no science expert, but I know the fundamental doctrines that rebuke evolution. i.e. Thermodynamics. the periodic tabe of elements, gravity, EM spectrum, matters of the heart, geology. but non of these will help you. none!

Lets just say for speculation I was able to make you believe that evolution was false, I still made no progress. Like I said before, if you are looking for God in science you won't find him. When/if he reveals himself to you you will know it, like you know your own name, and only because you have called on only begotten son of God.

I think that this is my last post on this thread. By now I have rattled the cage.

Umm, how does the periodic table of elements rebuke evolution??

my truth and your truth are two different things

That is very evident.

Your evolution is most definately not science, but religion. (theory taught as fact) forced upon people, and schools. Teachers are fired from their jobs because they don't teach evo. Students are given failing grades because they oppose evolution. If you want to know about the origin of the things unseen, I'll surely offend you.

I'm no science expert, but I know the fundamental doctrines that rebuke evolution. i.e. Thermodynamics. the periodic tabe of elements, gravity, EM spectrum, matters of the heart, geology. but non of these will help you. none!

Lets just say for speculation I was able to make you believe that evolution was false, I still made no progress. Like I said before, if you are looking for God in science you won't find him. When/if he reveals himself to you you will know it, like you know your own name, and only because you have called on only begotten son of God.

I think that this is my last post on this thread. By now I have rattled the cage.

....Aaand here we go again. I am not sure if you know this, but you are most certainly not the first to come here hoping to preach with those precise nuggets of nonsense. We have seen it all before. We already know what you are going to say and that there is no hope of getting you to understand the nature of science and what it has found thus far. To be blunt, we largely don't have a high regard for the kind of arguments that you are likely to make and a propensity for preaching we don't appreciate.

Let me ask you; what is your purpose for coming to this forum? This is a serious question. It is obvious that you are not here to discuss science for science's sake, but to preach to us and make decidedly unscientific arguments based on faith, which is unsopported by extensive evidence. Why are you here? Because let me tell you, we don't take kindly to unending doctrine-rich diatribes and insessant preaching. This is a science forum where we discuss science.

Originally Posted by lot2do

minus the pontification, (Which is not biblical) And the Catholic church is not the church at all, but a cult.

my truth and your truth are two different things, Your evolution is most definately not science, but religion. (theory taught as fact) forced upon people, and schools. Teachers are fired from their jobs because they don't teach evo. Students are given failing grades because they oppose evolution. If you want to know about the origin of the things unseen, I'll surely offend you.

I think you're suffering from a common misconception that gets taught to people in church about science, but which is not true of science. In science, a theory is not meant to describe what is certain. It is meant to describe which view has the highest probability of being true based on the evidence available. Patterns matter more than "smoking guns". A repeating pattern has a low probability of being the result of random chance.

For example, if you drop a lead ball from various heights and observe that the time it takes to land is the square root of the distance over 200 repetitions, then the probability that your formula is wrong is very low. It's not guaranteed to be true. It could have been luck. Similarly, if you analyze a large number of insects or fossils, looking for certain markers, and you see a strong pattern emerge which conforms with the predictions of your theory, then your "probability sense" should be tingling.

The main problem with science for religious people is that it cannot overcome Pascal's Wager. There is no probability high enough to be worth rolling the dice on the possibility of eternal damnation.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by lot2do

I'm no science expert, but I know the fundamental doctrines that rebuke evolution. i.e. Thermodynamics. the periodic tabe of elements, gravity, EM spectrum, matters of the heart, geology. but non of these will help you. none!

Thermal dynamics allows for the entropy of one system to decrease by way of causing a greater amount of entropy to befall another system. In the case of planet Earth, arriving Sunlight has a slightly lower entropy than the heat energy that gets radiated out of the Earth's atmosphere back into space.

Creationism and the Laws of Thermodynamics | NCSE

THE ENTROPY BUDGET OF ONE SQUARE METER OF LAND

The average temperature of the earth's surface is 288 K (= 15° C = 59° F) according to Lide (2004-5: 14-3). To maintain this temperature, that one square meter must radiate 224.4 J of energy back into the atmosphere (and ultimately into outer space) every second. The entropy of this radiation is

ΔS =	Q	=	224.4	= 0.779 J/K.
T	228

Assuming sunny skies, this one square meter of ground gains 0.076 J/K of entropy every second from sunlight, and produces 0.779 J/K every second by radiating energy back into the sky for a net entropy creation rate of 0.703 J/K every second. In effect, the earth is an entropy factory for the universe, taking individual high-energy (visible) photons and converting each of them into many low-energy (infrared) photons, increasing the disorder of the universe. As long as life on earth decreases its entropy at a rate of 0.703 J/K or less per square meter every second, the entropy of the universe will not decrease over time due to this one square meter of earth, and the Second Law will be obeyed.

Originally Posted by lot2do

Lets just say for speculation I was able to make you believe that evolution was false, I still made no progress. Like I said before, if you are looking for God in science you won't find him. When/if he reveals himself to you you will know it, like you know your own name, and only because you have called on only begotten son of God.

I think that this is my last post on this thread. By now I have rattled the cage.

Ah. You just need to step back further, and allow God to work in more mysterious ways. Time is relative, so maybe God was moving near the speed of light, or standing near the event horizon of a black hole when he/she/it created the Earth? That's one day to him, and maybe a bazillion years to us. Just depends on which perspective the Bible is using.

The supernatural are most likely the result of psychotropic drugs, as were many scientific breakthroughs. bill hicks - evolution - YouTube

No where in the bible is it written that God works in mysterious ways. Who told you that non-sense? It is very clear how god works, and it's not mysterious. You need to fire whomever told you that. This world had concocted many wives tales about the God of the bible, and none of them are correct.

For interpretaion of the word it must be taken literally, if not it will never make sense, and has but only one interpretation and not what you make of it. We are evil in our nature and need some one to lean on for guidance, If we cant trust the word then it is just opinion. you will find no opinion in the bible. and no allusions to evolution.

Evolution breeds hatred.

Originally Posted by lot2do

No where in the bible is it written that God works in mysterious ways. Who told you that non-sense? It is very clear how god works, and it's not mysterious. You need to fire whomever told you that. This world had concocted many wives tales about the God of the bible, and none of them are correct.

For interpretaion of the word it must be taken literally, if not it will never make sense, and has but only one interpretation and not what you make of it. We are evil in our nature and need some one to lean on for guidance, If we cant trust the word then it is just opinion. you will find no opinion in the bible. and no allusions to evolution.

Evolution breeds hatred.

Are you sure gradual adaptation to circumstance/manipulation breeds hatred ? Even if it does, it can breed other emotions. Beauty is nice right ?

Hitler did what he did because he was an evolutionist.

Originally Posted by lot2do

Hitler did what he did because he was an evolutionist.

Evolution does not breed any emotion as it is not a process with a specific goal. That same argument in reverse, that religion breeds hate, you just presented is applicable to the perpetrators of the Crusades, anti-abortionist activists, and the Anti-gay bill in Uganda.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by lot2do

Hitler did what he did because he was an evolutionist.

Evolution does not breed any emotion as it is not a process with a specific goal. That same argument in reverse, that religion breeds hate, you just presented is applicable to the perpetrators of the Crusades, anti-abortionist activists, and the Anti-gay bill in Uganda.

Evolutionary stages follow linear progression this has direction therefore can be considered goal oriented. From no ear, to having an ear, goal = ear

You don't get straight furrows if you don't pick a target across the field and aim for it. A straight line is a distance between two points(goals).

follow the gay agenda to its end. again you arrive at anniliation of man. (men with men, women with women) who will bare young? they wont stop at equality. they don't realize how evil they are, not to mention the plagues that follow them.

Evolution; just eat your young, Cats often eat their young. Other beasts often abandon their young to their deaths, male lions will attack their own. Evolution; were no different than beasts.

The God of the Bible; Keep your young, love your young under all circumstances, train your young, discipline your young so that they will not fall into a pit. do the same with your neighbor.

the crusades were not biblical. Nor is Mary worship. Constantine is the one who made heritical christianity. (catholic church)

Evolution by its principals breed catastrophic emotion in man to 'not care', and disregard the sanctity of life. how can you push Evolutions principals knowing what it is? In your belief of this principal you break all of the ten commandments, both sides of the ten. The letter and the spirit of it. and the worst part of it is you will defend it with religious like reference.

What was an ear befor it looked like it does now? How did an ear evolve from a rock? at which stage was it half rock and half ear? how did sound change that sound didn't require a large reflector on the outside of the the head to "funnel" the sound to the drum?

How did the bombadier beetle get its explosive mixture right without blowing up itself into extinction? any part of that mixture that is not correct and it blows up.

It all has to be put in place all at the same time or else it would not work.

Creation answers that easily.

Originally Posted by lot2do

What was an ear befor it looked like it does now? How did an ear evolve from a rock? at which stage was it half rock and half ear? how did sound change that sound didn't require a large reflector on the outside of the the head to "funnel" the sound to the drum?

How did the bombadier beetle get its explosive mixture right without blowing up itself into extinction? any part of that mixture that is not correct and it blows up.

It all has to be put in place all at the same time or else it would not work.

Creation answers that easily.

A jaw.
Limestone gets carried in water, gets ingested, gets ionised, then mineralised into bone.
Limestone is calcium, it is still rock.
Ear hears frequency by repetition of taps not physical size of wavelength.
I don't know about bombadier beetles.
I disagree most things are built in layers over time.

Originally Posted by lot2do

What was an ear befor it looked like it does now? How did an ear evolve from a rock? at which stage was it half rock and half ear? how did sound change that sound didn't require a large reflector on the outside of the the head to "funnel" the sound to the drum?

How did the bombadier beetle get its explosive mixture right without blowing up itself into extinction? any part of that mixture that is not correct and it blows up.

It all has to be put in place all at the same time or else it would not work.

Creation answers that easily.

A jaw.
Limestone gets carried in water, gets ingested, gets ionised, then mineralised into bone.
Limestone is calcium, it is still rock.
Ear hears frequency by repetition of pressure fluctuations, the outer ear is for directionality.
I don't know about bombadier beetles.
I disagree, most things are built in layers over time.

Wavelength determines frequency, greater the wavelength the lower the frequency. the same with the em-spectrum. but what or how did a rock/ear develop where sound has not. Sound must be made it cannot be created or un-created, there would have had to be sound/ hitting the rock for it to decide it needed ears. where is the linear model of an ear in the making? what sound was being made for it to realize that it was there? How did the rock know that there was sound?

Bombadier beetles have and extremily explosive mixture of two elements that when in contact they explode. they must be regulated and highest control or else. how does evolution control this event? how many tries does it take before the mixture and holding tanks, metering, and need for such a weapon come into complete control by the beetle? I tell you linear build up can not happen. All mechanisims must be in place at once or else. A rocket motor cannot evolve; it must have correct metering of oxidizer and fuel of a type, venturi size, safe holding and delivery, valving, glands that secrete these propellents, all the necessary control structure (wiring control) nerves, a need for it, placement in this world, you wouldnt want this bug in your grain elevator in Iowa!

I dont understand the The Jaw; do you mean during animal or human ingestion?

Originally Posted by lot2do

Wavelength determines frequency, greater the wavelength the lower the frequency. the same with the em-spectrum. but what or how did a rock/ear develop where sound has not. Sound must be made it cannot be created or un-created, there would have had to be sound/ hitting the rock for it to decide it needed ears. where is the linear model of an ear in the making? what sound was being made for it to realize that it was there? How did the rock know that there was sound?

Bombadier beetles have and extremily explosive mixture of two elements that when in contact they explode. they must be regulated and highest control or else. how does evolution control this event? how many tries does it take before the mixture and holding tanks, metering, and need for such a weapon come into complete control by the beetle? I tell you linear build up can not happen. All mechanisims must be in place at once or else. A rocket motor cannot evolve; it must have correct metering of oxidizer and fuel of a type, venturi size, safe holding and delivery, valving, glands that secrete these propellents, all the necessary control structure (wiring control) nerves, a need for it, placement in this world, you wouldnt want this bug in your grain elevator in Iowa!

I dont understand the The Jaw; do you mean during animal or human ingestion?

Wavelength = timing between events, take the points where the wave cuts the x axis as impacts on the drum.
Reason for ear, balance and to know when someone is sneaking up behind you and help locate prey.
Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lot2do has been banned for continuing to contravene the rules despite an official warning. Anyone is free to contact a moderator or admin via PM if you should wish to discuss this further. Please don't discuss it here. Thanks

I used to be really religious. It's very hard for some highly religious people to deal with the idea of limiting oneself to observable phenomena. You get taught your whole life that the reason you're special, and why you will go to heaven and all those heathens won't, is precisely because of your ability to shut off your IQ, and blindly accept something. Well, everyone wants to be special. So, there's your origin of religion: people wanted to feel special.

From the start, humanity has never wanted to consider the idea that it is possible for there to be too many people. So, we invent increasingly implausible rationalizations to avoid arriving at this conclusion fate/nature is trying to present us with. Until all the infidels are dead, there's no saying quite "for sure" that overpopulation was the problem. Maybe it was just overpopulation of those bad guys, and an infinitely large population of good guys could survive without that stuff, right? "Maybe" becomes "certainly", and when the current group of infidels are all dead we'll just find a new batch of infidels and go after them next. Always the goal is to leave the question unanswered. We don't have to arrive at any conclusions about it as long as there's a red herring on the table to keep us busy.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by lot2do

Hitler did what he did because he was an evolutionist.

Evolution does not breed any emotion as it is not a process with a specific goal. That same argument in reverse, that religion breeds hate, you just presented is applicable to the perpetrators of the Crusades, anti-abortionist activists, and the Anti-gay bill in Uganda.

Evolutionary stages follow linear progression this has direction therefore can be considered goal oriented. From no ear, to having an ear, goal = ear

You don't get straight furrows if you don't pick a target across the field and aim for it. A straight line is a distance between two points(goals).

Goals, in the context of biology are different, and not the way you are using it here. Goal most often mean intent, which for all intents and purposes, evolution does not have.

Originally Posted by kojax

I used to be really religious. It's very hard for some highly religious people to deal with the idea of limiting oneself to observable phenomena. You get taught your whole life that the reason you're special, and why you will go to heaven and all those heathens won't, is precisely because of your ability to shut off your IQ, and blindly accept something. Well, everyone wants to be special. So, there's your origin of religion: people wanted to feel special.

From the start, humanity has never wanted to consider the idea that it is possible for there to be too many people. So, we invent increasingly implausible rationalizations to avoid arriving at this conclusion fate/nature is trying to present us with. Until all the infidels are dead, there's no saying quite "for sure" that overpopulation was the problem. Maybe it was just overpopulation of those bad guys, and an infinitely large population of good guys could survive without that stuff, right? "Maybe" becomes "certainly", and when the current group of infidels are all dead we'll just find a new batch of infidels and go after them next. Always the goal is to leave the question unanswered. We don't have to arrive at any conclusions about it as long as there's a red herring on the table to keep us busy.

Good and bad are within us all.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by lot2do

Hitler did what he did because he was an evolutionist.

Evolution does not breed any emotion as it is not a process with a specific goal. That same argument in reverse, that religion breeds hate, you just presented is applicable to the perpetrators of the Crusades, anti-abortionist activists, and the Anti-gay bill in Uganda.

Evolutionary stages follow linear progression this has direction therefore can be considered goal oriented. From no ear, to having an ear, goal = ear

You don't get straight furrows if you don't pick a target across the field and aim for it. A straight line is a distance between two points(goals).

Goals, in the context of biology are different, and not the way you are using it here. Goal most often mean intent, which for all intents and purposes, evolution does not have.

Yep, like gills and lungs , completely random happenstance. So many drowned lol. If that change was random its amazing any survived. I wonder if that was the start of giving birth in shallow water ..... Most likely a development in river fish that suffered prolonged drought.

Building up immunities to background radiation is random ? Like standing instead of swinging through trees, we don't evolve by circumstance it's "random" ?

I realized lot2do ah been banned but I want to address a couple of points.

Originally Posted by lot2do

follow the gay agenda to its end. again you arrive at anniliation of man. (men with men, women with women) who will bare young? they wont stop at equality. they don't realize how evil they are, not to mention the plagues that follow them.

Gay is a natural end of the human sexual spectrum, and never gets to be more then about 15% of the population, so there will still be 85% of the population. Plus may gay couples use invitro or similar methods to have children. Thus the scare tactics of human extinction fail.

Also not "plagues" follow.

Originally Posted by lot2do

Evolution; just eat your young, Cats often eat their young. Other beasts often abandon their young to their deaths, male lions will attack their own. Evolution; were no different than beasts.

Humans often kill each other for resources of for grudges. There is not magic dividing line between humans and the rest of animals.

Originally Posted by lot2do

The God of the Bible; Keep your young, love your young under all circumstances, train your young, discipline your young so that they will not fall into a pit. do the same with your neighbor.

the crusades were not biblical. Nor is Mary worship. Constantine is the one who made heritical christianity. (catholic church)

Evolution by its principals breed catastrophic emotion in man to 'not care', and disregard the sanctity of life. how can you push Evolutions principals knowing what it is? In your belief of this principal you break all of the ten commandments, both sides of the ten. The letter and the spirit of it. and the worst part of it is you will defend it with religious like reference.

Morals are not a religion based concept, almost all people have them to one degree or another, and they are accentuated and molded by the overall culture that someone lives in. evolution is not involved in the process at any point.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by lot2do

Hitler did what he did because he was an evolutionist.

Evolution does not breed any emotion as it is not a process with a specific goal. That same argument in reverse, that religion breeds hate, you just presented is applicable to the perpetrators of the Crusades, anti-abortionist activists, and the Anti-gay bill in Uganda.

Evolutionary stages follow linear progression this has direction therefore can be considered goal oriented. From no ear, to having an ear, goal = ear

You don't get straight furrows if you don't pick a target across the field and aim for it. A straight line is a distance between two points(goals).

Goals, in the context of biology are different, and not the way you are using it here. Goal most often mean intent, which for all intents and purposes, evolution does not have.

Yep, like gills and lungs , completely random happenstance. So many drowned lol. If that change was random its amazing any survived. I wonder if that was the start of giving birth in shallow water ..... Most likely a development in river fish that suffered prolonged drought.

Building up immunities to background radiation is random ? Like standing instead of swinging through trees, we don't evolve by circumstance it's "random" ?

Yes actually it is random. its a random chance that a mutation will give a slight advantage over others. The carrier may get lucky enough to reproduce and provide more offspring that others of the group, spreading the advantageous mutation. add thousands of generations and gills, fins, hard shelled eggs, feathers, etc appear.

At no point is there a decision to form any thing, so their is no goal to work towards.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by lot2do

Hitler did what he did because he was an evolutionist.

Evolution does not breed any emotion as it is not a process with a specific goal. That same argument in reverse, that religion breeds hate, you just presented is applicable to the perpetrators of the Crusades, anti-abortionist activists, and the Anti-gay bill in Uganda.

Evolutionary stages follow linear progression this has direction therefore can be considered goal oriented. From no ear, to having an ear, goal = ear

You don't get straight furrows if you don't pick a target across the field and aim for it. A straight line is a distance between two points(goals).

Goals, in the context of biology are different, and not the way you are using it here. Goal most often mean intent, which for all intents and purposes, evolution does not have.

Yep, like gills and lungs , completely random happenstance. So many drowned lol. If that change was random its amazing any survived. I wonder if that was the start of giving birth in shallow water ..... Most likely a development in river fish that suffered prolonged drought.

Building up immunities to background radiation is random ? Like standing instead of swinging through trees, we don't evolve by circumstance it's "random" ?

Yes actually it is random. its a random chance that a mutation will give a slight advantage over others. The carrier may get lucky enough to reproduce and provide more offspring that others of the group, spreading the advantageous mutation. add thousands of generations and gills, fins, hard shelled eggs, feathers, etc appear.

At no point is there a decision to form any thing, so their is no goal to work towards.

So how does a jaw bone become an ear over 5 progressive stages if it's random ? Surely 1 stage follows another delineating direction. Remember that during these stages the fish had to be supported as it could not feed as efficiently. If it were truly random 1 stage is unlikely to completely through not knowing where it's going or what it's becoming let alone 5 consecutive stages.
I am not saying the creature knew what was going on but the mutation "appears" to have a plan.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

So how does a jaw bone become an ear over 5 progressive stages if it's random ? Surely 1 stage follows another delineating direction. Remember that during these stages the fish had to be supported as it could not feed as efficiently. If it were truly random 1 stage is unlikely to completely through not knowing where it's going or what it's becoming let alone 5 consecutive stages.
I am not saying the creature knew what was going on but the mutation "appears" to have a plan.

the feeding mechanism would have changed and the food eaten changed as the adaptation progressed. Remember it wasn't one generation has stage one and the very next has stage two. It would have been a gradual morphology change with the end being what we currently call the ear.

So the question becomes where is the plan coming from and how is it being determined when it should be implemented?

How much does the Fibonacci spiral have to do with it ? Is quantum entanglement responsible for the different mutations per species ? (resonance of matched particles, tuning by size) Is there a signal from somewhere that informs dna ? That is different per frequency ?
Is it geometrical happenstance, or is there a greater sentience than ours ?

Quantum entanglement is fun to think about , It opens the possibility of telepathy and many other curious possibilities. Id, ego super, ego could be a very simplified view. It could be that each glial cell in our brains is tuned to other matched glial cells regardless of location, and each glial cell that is excited whilst we think we are either sending or receiving info from(sub concious).

I have a post that I tried to explore this in :Brain plasticity theory.

Written in my typically poor fashion , sorry.

One could just as easily say that Coyote, Rainbow Serpent, and Ganesh in a friendly rivalry to see who can do the most.

The vast physical evidence points to an undirected evolutionary process.

So far....

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

So far....

point being?

Can you name a few useless yet successful mutations ?

The only ones I know of are in multi stage evolutions and they resulted in a useful mutation. Where is the random in all this ?

That is due to the fact that successful mutations will generate enough specimens for some to manage to get fossilized, the statistical probability of an individual with a harmful mutation being fossilized is much much lower, and given that the likelihood of fossilization is already tiny, we will most likely not see them.

If it is random there is equal chance of any mutation. That makes many freaks not many successful. This is not the case.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Quantum entanglement is fun to think about , It opens the possibility of telepathy and many other curious possibilities. Id, ego super, ego could be a very simplified view.

Don't try and explain anything using Freudian ideas. Freud was a moron. It is also rude to ignore Paleoichneum 's above post, in which he describe how a jaw bone could develop into an ear.

I did not ignore that post, when the fish had gaps in it's lower jaw there must have been a sufficient supply of plankton which was not it's normal diet considering the fishes teeth. Could this bloom be the circumstantial trigger for the mutation ?

Why random ?
We are products of our circumstance and knowledge.

Originally Posted by Falconer360

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Quantum entanglement is fun to think about , It opens the possibility of telepathy and many other curious possibilities. Id, ego super, ego could be a very simplified view.

Don't try and explain anything using Freudian ideas. Freud was a moron. It is also rude to ignore Paleoichneum 's above post, in which he describe how a jaw bone could develop into an ear.

Sorry but I have not studied Freud as many of the things I have heard quoted of his I am more than sceptical of.
That thought is from sci-fi, quantum entanglement, morphic resonance(again sceptical) and finally mental institute patients many of whom describe thoughts in their mind that they feel are not from themselves but external influence.

I do have my own experiences to draw on in this regard. I have learnt things when in a manic state that I had no knowledge of prior to "illness". I have suffered mania to the point of making sense from the sounds around me(mind racing so fast that I am able to put consonants to beats and fool myself that I can hear what noises may be saying(I understand this delusion in my own way, is it telepathy and I am fooling myself - who knows).
On admission to hospital I was running many(my guess 4 - 6) internal dialogues concurrently and unable to explain as my mouth could not keep up the pace.

For me the world is not as straight forward as it may appear to you.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Sorry but I have not studied Freud as many of the things I have heard quoted of his I am more than sceptical of.
That thought is from sci-fi, quantum entanglement, morphic resonance(again sceptical) and finally mental institute patients many of whom describe thoughts in their mind that they feel are not from themselves but external influence.

I do have my own experiences to draw on in this regard. I have learnt things when in a manic state that I had no knowledge of prior to "illness". I have suffered mania to the point of making sense from the sounds around me(mind racing so fast that I am able to put consonants to beats and fool myself that I can hear what noises may be saying(I understand this delusion in my own way, is it telepathy and I am fooling myself - who knows).
On admission to hospital I was running many(my guess 4 - 6) internal dialogues concurrently and unable to explain as my mouth could not keep up the pace.

For me the world is not as straight forward as it may appear to you.

I have never actually studied Freud's teachings thoroughly, but that is because it is a waste of time. He was a lunatic. In general stay away from Freudian ideas and logic if you want people to respect you. Just a helpful hint. I only commented because I hate seeing Freudian ideas mentioned. And by no means is the world straight forward, reality is as we perceive it.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by lot2do

Hitler did what he did because he was an evolutionist.

Evolution does not breed any emotion as it is not a process with a specific goal. That same argument in reverse, that religion breeds hate, you just presented is applicable to the perpetrators of the Crusades, anti-abortionist activists, and the Anti-gay bill in Uganda.

Evolutionary stages follow linear progression this has direction therefore can be considered goal oriented. From no ear, to having an ear, goal = ear

You don't get straight furrows if you don't pick a target across the field and aim for it. A straight line is a distance between two points(goals).

Goals, in the context of biology are different, and not the way you are using it here. Goal most often mean intent, which for all intents and purposes, evolution does not have.

Yep, like gills and lungs , completely random happenstance. So many drowned lol. If that change was random its amazing any survived. I wonder if that was the start of giving birth in shallow water ..... Most likely a development in river fish that suffered prolonged drought.

Building up immunities to background radiation is random ? Like standing instead of swinging through trees, we don't evolve by circumstance it's "random" ?

Before the first fish ever gained the ability to breathe air, probably there was lots and lots and lots of food on the shore, all going uneaten. It was just sitting there as enticement to a hungry fish brave enough to try swimming there during high tide, and hope to get back before low tide leaves it stranded.

Many would have suffocated before lungs emerged, but you're wrong if you think there was no direction. The environment sets the direction, and life moves toward that environment's lush fields of plenty, wherever those lush fields are to be found, even if it's in Antarctica or at the top of Mount Everest, or on a sandy beach.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Yes actually it is random. its a random chance that a mutation will give a slight advantage over others. The carrier may get lucky enough to reproduce and provide more offspring that others of the group, spreading the advantageous mutation. add thousands of generations and gills, fins, hard shelled eggs, feathers, etc appear.

At no point is there a decision to form any thing, so their is no goal to work towards.

So how does a jaw bone become an ear over 5 progressive stages if it's random ? Surely 1 stage follows another delineating direction. Remember that during these stages the fish had to be supported as it could not feed as efficiently. If it were truly random 1 stage is unlikely to completely through not knowing where it's going or what it's becoming let alone 5 consecutive stages.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I am not saying the creature knew what was going on but the mutation "appears" to have a plan.

Things like this only happen if each incremental stage yields an advantage. If an animal were already starting to distinguish sounds by feeling vibrations in its jaw, and this were helping it find food or avoid predators, then naturally the jaw would begin to mutate in a direction that made sound detection more and more likely.

Where do we find fish with lungs - fresh water. Without legs lungs do not aid hunting on land, but they help in survival of drought. If lungs were developed as part of a plan to leave the water and feed on land it is not random .

We feel vibrations in any curve, by the focus of pressure to a point. Resonance, quantum entanglement.
eg, Play with loud bass frequencies and you can feel the vibrations move from lungs to lumbar.
Sound works in atmosphere, so the potential required for resonance depends on the differential of the media involved.

Random does not appear to apply, If I feel hungry I go in search of food, I don't develop a new tool, unless food is plentiful and I have time on my hands.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I should have thought that a sense of the supernatural preceded organised religion by several millenia and may even be pre homo sapiens in origin. This appears self evident to me, but I'll present the argument to any doubters.

Okay, let's hear it.

You won't hear it from Ophiolite. He left.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Where do we find fish with lungs - fresh water. Without legs lungs do not aid hunting on land, but they help in survival of drought. If lungs were developed as part of a plan to leave the water and feed on land it is not random .

So that's the key to understanding it then. Evolution is clearly not random by your definition of "random". It is directed. Life is essentially just a repository of information about its own environment. If the environment changes, then life changes. If the environment stays the same, then life stays pretty much the same. It's always mutating a little bit, of course, but big changes are only likely to happen when a new niche opens up. Discovery/emergence of a new niche is always going to be where you get a new species from.

The "plan" is always to find food, eat it, and live long enough to reproduce. Every life form is pursuing this plan.

We feel vibrations in any curve, by the focus of pressure to a point. Resonance, quantum entanglement.
eg, Play with loud bass frequencies and you can feel the vibrations move from lungs to lumbar.
Sound works in atmosphere, so the potential required for resonance depends on the differential of the media involved.

Random does not appear to apply, If I feel hungry I go in search of food, I don't develop a new tool, unless food is plentiful and I have time on my hands.

What happens is that, if you are lucky enough to have the right mutation, your search is successful. If you're not lucky enough to have the right mutation, then you still expend the same effort, but it doesn't yield any results and you starve. If you're trying to provide for children, then probably those children starve too, leaving you childless.

The circumstantial changes are not predictable as yet, I believe this is the "random". The mutation is a response(directly relative) .

Originally Posted by Falconer360

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Quantum entanglement is fun to think about , It opens the possibility of telepathy and many other curious possibilities. Id, ego super, ego could be a very simplified view.

Don't try and explain anything using Freudian ideas. Freud was a moron. It is also rude to ignore Paleoichneum 's above post, in which he describe how a jaw bone could develop into an ear.

I'm not an expert on Freud and I am sure a number of his ideas are wrong, but he was a pioneer and an important thinker.
To call him a "moron" is absurd nonsense!

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

The circumstantial changes are not predictable as yet, I believe this is the "random". The mutation is a response(directly relative) .

No. The mutations are random within bounds, but whether they survive or not depends on how it affects the organism's ability to successfully reproduce. If it does not impact a lot (neutral), then they get passed on as a matter of course. If they are beneficial towards successful reproduction, they have a greater chance of surviving than competing genes and starts to increase in frequency in the community. If they hamper reproduction, they fade away.

The mutations are NOT a response to the environment. They are natural, random variations that get tested by the environment.

Kalster, you are going to confuse this poor gentleman. He is yet a novice. Baby steps, please. Individual mutations may be perfectly random, but the process as a whole is not random. The process as a whole has a direction.

It's similar to how the rudder on an airplane stops the flow of air in one direction so the plane can turn. It doesn't actively push the plane anywhere. It just stops it. The environment similarly acts like a rudder, by stopping the flow of mutations that are headed in the wrong direction, by preventing those organisms from successfully reproducing.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

The circumstantial changes are not predictable as yet, I believe this is the "random". The mutation is a response(directly relative) .

Yes, the environment is random. As we can see just by looking at nearby planets in space, such as Mars and Venus, there is a lot of luck involved in the fact that Earth has liquid water flowing on it, and the right amount of various chemicals for life to form.

The fact a landmass existed, where the fish might find food to eat was random as well. But the fact the fish evolved legs and lungs in order to reach that food wasn't really very random at all. It was virtually guaranteed to happen sooner or later. I mean it was guaranteed in the same way as how if you put a single bullet into a revolver and then play Russian Roulette a thousand times, sooner or later that bullet is going to go off. There's a non-zero chance it won't, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Kalster, you are going to confuse this poor gentleman.

I fail to see how my reply was more "advanced" than yours?

Originally Posted by kojax

Kalster, you are going to confuse this poor gentleman. He is yet a novice. Baby steps, please. Individual mutations may be perfectly random, but the process as a whole is not random. The process as a whole has a direction.

It's similar to how the rudder on an airplane stops the flow of air in one direction so the plane can turn. It doesn't actively push the plane anywhere. It just stops it. The environment similarly acts like a rudder, by stopping the flow of mutations that are headed in the wrong direction, by preventing those organisms from successfully reproducing.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

The circumstantial changes are not predictable as yet, I believe this is the "random". The mutation is a response(directly relative) .

Yes, the environment is random. As we can see just by looking at nearby planets in space, such as Mars and Venus, there is a lot of luck involved in the fact that Earth has liquid water flowing on it, and the right amount of various chemicals for life to form.

The fact a landmass existed, where the fish might find food to eat was random as well. But the fact the fish evolved legs and lungs in order to reach that food wasn't really very random at all. It was virtually guaranteed to happen sooner or later. I mean it was guaranteed in the same way as how if you put a single bullet into a revolver and then play Russian Roulette a thousand times, sooner or later that bullet is going to go off. There's a non-zero chance it won't, but I wouldn't bet on it.

In the case of the jaw to ear, where does the decision of right or wrong after the first stage when the fish is less able come into it ? How could detrimentally mutated creatures breed so effectively ?

How would society react to a similar mutation ?

Ever heard the saying "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king"? Same goes for the land of the deaf. The first fish able to distinguish sound was alone in that ability. Each incremental change put the recipient at the front of the pack, with its associated reward of being the first to get to the noisy prey animals and therefore the first to eat. (Prey animals would not learn to move quietly for some time after, having never needed to worry about it before.)

Originally Posted by kojax

Ever heard the saying "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king"? Same goes for the land of the deaf. The first fish able to distinguish sound was alone in that ability. Each incremental change put the recipient at the front of the pack, with its associated reward of being the first to get to the noisy prey animals and therefore the first to eat. (Prey animals would not learn to move quietly for some time after, having never needed to worry about it before.)

Noisy prey animals that could be drunk like soup? Lower jaw broken - no bite. Danger avoidance however.........( the ability to hear predators and keep children safe.....)

The worst trouble I have with random is the overwhelming number of freaks it implies when so few fossils have been found. The ones we have found fit the linear progression to beneficial modifications. I hate random and coincidence.

Cause and effect.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

The worst trouble I have with random is the overwhelming number of freaks it implies when so few fossils have been found. The ones we have found fit the linear progression to beneficial modifications. I hate random and coincidence.

Cause and effect.

As I have already explained the fossil record represents the groups that have large enough numbers for a very small fraction to actually fossilize. The lone individuals that have harmful mutations are exceedingly unlikely to statistically get fossilized.

The only thing you need to be fossilised is dying in the right place.

Where did the ear get the idea to move onto stage 2 instead of randomly growing a third eye ?

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

The only thing you need to be fossilised is dying in the right place.

Where did the ear get the idea to move onto stage 2 instead of randomly growing a third eye ?

The right place at the right time, then continuing to have the right time for the next several million years at least. These "rights" combine to create very low odds of it happening over all. Thus you need large numbers of a species to have the possibility.

As has been said it didn't "get" the idea at all. That progression was the most advantageous at the time, and thus was the mutation that was propagated.

BTW do you have a reference for the five step plan you are quoting?

There are lots of sites with info on this subject. I cannot find my original source but this should suit. Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

The worst trouble I have with random is the overwhelming number of freaks it implies when so few fossils have been found. The ones we have found fit the linear progression to beneficial modifications. I hate random and coincidence.

Cause and effect.

There should be billions of freaks, but also trillions of non-freaks. Freaks make it into the fossil record rarely because despite there being a large total number, that large number is still just a tiny sliver of a percent of the whole.

The reason the ones we find fit into linear progression is because beneficial mutations don't happen alone. If its beneficial, then probably a lot of creatures will be born with that trait, which increases the odds that at least one of their number will get found. Freaks with non-beneficial mutations usually die and don't leave any offspring, which means there's only one skeleton to find.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

The only thing you need to be fossilised is dying in the right place.

Dying in the right place is random, but the more creatures there are with that trait, the more times you get to roll the dice. It's like buying a thousand lottery tickets instead of just one. There's still a lot of chance to it, but not as much luck involved.

Where did the ear get the idea to move onto stage 2 instead of randomly growing a third eye ?

There's no benefit to having a third eye. It costs calories and nutrients to maintain extra body parts, so a third eye would actually count as a detrimental mutation for most animals.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I'd be happy to wager that mysticism came well before organised religion.

i would wager based on the dogon tribe in africa it wasnt mysticism at all but a clear understanding of quantum phenomenon.
also based on the mahabarata and its descriptions of the vimanas.

Many topics in this forum often end up in the discussion on the validity of the evolution theory. I would like to point out that

1. The evolution theory is now firmly established in the science community. In this context, 'theory' means "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world". It does not mean "a hypothesis". There are mountains of evidence that support the theory, from fossils, carbon dating, molecular biology, embryology etc. The theory comprehensively explains the development process of all living organisms. It explains both elegant designs and inelegant designs. Some designs have simple explanation, some do require more creative investigation. However, all designs can be explained by the evolution theory: the process of design without a designer. Biologists also apply the theory in the field, to make predictions that are later proved to be correct.

2. There are a number of propositions (or hypothesis?) that are put forward to replace the evolution theory, for example directed evolution or intelligent design. However, they have three serious drawbacks:
2.1 They do not provide full explanation. The key issues are lumped into CDEE (Can-Do-Everything Entity) and then CDEE is given the privilege to be above scrutiny. It is the ultimate answer for everything, no further question.
2.2 They do not explain the design process of all living organisms well enough, especially when the designs are inelegant.
2.3 They can not provide meaningful predictions that can support their validity.

I find the argument about the development of ears, or homosexuality etc. is a kind of nit-picking of small issues, while the contending propositions are weak to the core. If Max Time Taken believes in his alternative theory, let him explain how it can respond to 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3