As we now have trans as a protected class it has shown the slippery slope in full free fall from the “gay rights” debate a decade ago. The problem is that laws based on fallacies will always be abused because their is no need to prove that any additions are legitimate. We have known for centuries men and women are not equal, we have known for centuries that racial aggregates depended on the culture dictating genetics. When we pretended that this didn’t matter we opened the door for non-biological protected classes. There has never been any evidence that being gay or trans is genetic, and there has been inconclusive evidence that gay and trans is biological at all aside from the biological impact occurring from grooming. In fact the best biological evidence we have is that external stimuli (aka other people) is what causes biological changes in the individual. Yet now we have more protected classes that are inherently non-biological than provably biological. These abuses are meant to subjugate not protect, they are meant to deny reality in place of accepting it.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (138)
sorted by:
Not really. Mathematically it's already happened. Regardless of the statistics the fact is that mathematically it's possible and it happened. You're argument is akin to looking at a rock and saying it could have taken all these other paths but it landed in this spot right here. The probability of this specific spot is huge. Well yeah but so what. If not this arrangement we wouldn't exist to examine it.
The mutations also aren't random. The set that works best for survival and reproduction is what gets selected. Pressure from the environment guides the process passively so that the remainder is the best fit for the current environment. Not being a random process greatly speeds up the changes and also makes your mathmatic probability argument irrelevant.
This is completely untrue on so many levels. Mutations are often random and caused by external factors ie viruses, natural disasters, vegetation, etc. The survival of the fittest crock has been so disproven it is laughable. There has never been a provable case of cross species mutation, evolution that is provable is very limited, and took hundreds of thousands of years for very small steps.
By your logic it’s possible to argue anything is possible given enough time and random chance. Even if that we’re true, the problem in this case is there isn’t enough time to accomplish everything evolution demands. You saying “but it happened” is just assuming the conclusion. The evidence for evolution is nowhere near as strong as you were led to believe and there are all sorts of problems with it that were glossed over and ignored for decades because academia hated Christianity and wanted desperately to distance itself from it.
As a theory it could still have legs if the glaring issues were addressed, but instead they just seem to just get worse the more we examine them, so at the very least it’s an incomplete theory (as it has always been). You’ll get your head taken off by academics, anti-theists and secularists if you even suggest such a thing though, as it’s taken on an almost religious importance in that community.
No I actually haven't made that assertion or alluded to it at all.
By what metric? What standard? And where does the theory of evolution make such a claim? You keep making this assertion with nothing to back it up.
It happened and I pointed out where you can find evidence of how and why it happened over multiple fields of study.
You're ignoring tangible facts and imperical evidence making this claim.
Then point out the problems so they can be discussed. The issues you've brought up so far I've given examples of evidence that points to you being absolutely wrong.
You're using the word theory in the scientific definition when it fits your need and changing it to the colloquial version to also fit your need. It's not both. You're being disengenuius by doing this. Especially after I pointed it out. The fact that you still are doing it makes me believe you have no interest in an honest discussion.
Nah this is bunk. The fact is there is mountains of evidence for evolution and you clearly don't want to look into any of it. I've provided examples that you just ignore completely. You're going to need more than baseless assertions to make a claim such as evolution isn't real. Your argument thus far makes it seem that you don't even know what the theory of evolution asserts to be the explanation.
I didn't say you did, I said that's where your logic leads.
If you want sources just ask. Google Stephen Meyer, David Berlinkski, James Tour and/or "evolution mathematically impossible" and you'll get plenty of resources.
You can start here if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE
We are debating the evidence. That's precisely what we're talking about right now. I'm saying the theory is full of holes (i.e. lacking critical pieces of evidence). These holes aren't even really denied by scientists on your side of the issue, they're just hand-waved away as inconsequential or unimportant (much like you're doing).
Unfounded.
I'm not prepared to give you a full dissertation on the topic; it's simply too massive and there are way too many issues to discuss. I also don't think you'll be receptive to it, so it would be a waste of my time. If you're really interested I suggest starting with the sources above and go down the rabbit hole from there.
I'm not changing definitions.
What are you even talking about? I think you're mistaking me for someone else.
You don't know me so I don't really know how you can presume to know what I'm willing to, or have, done. I've been debating topics like this with people like you online and elsewhere since the mid-to-late 90's... most of my life really. Trust me, I've done my homework.
Honestly, most of your comments don't make a lick of sense, so it wouldn't surprise me if you're mistaking me for someone else.
The mutations are random. Those that are selected for (or against) are not. The difference is important, and it invalidates the rest of your paragraph.
You should read on genetics and how traits are passed from one generation to another. No one who is actually educated on the subject calls it random because it's not.
You're being intentionally dense, and downvoting me is not going to help you win the argument, if anyone even scrolls down this far. The generation of new traits is random. The passing on of existing traits is not random, but determined by relative dominance of competing genes.
A finch in a seed-scarce environment isn't going to spontaneously evolve the ability to digest insects just because it would be evolutionarily advantageous to do so - spontaneous mutation resulting in greater fitness could, but again the odds against that are astronomical. The only framework in which that could happen is intelligent design, not evolution.
All of this is compounded by the problem of propagation. Even if an individual has a mutation that increases fitness, that new phenotype must diffuse through the species across many generations.
No it's not. Traits are passed from the set the parents can provide and the traits most likely to survive to be passed on are the ones that fit best for reproduction of the species. And this isn't always bigger and stronger traits. For example Peacocks select for longer tails and bright colors. This is actually a disadvantage to the males when fleeing predators. That isn't random. The same occurs with deer being selected by females for large sets of horns. Again another disadvantage as smaller horns require less energy and have less weight but still provide protection. Human females select for larger penises. Sorry it's true. They also select for taller men. Which is why our species is getting taller year over year. Again not random.
And again the theory of evolution makes no assertion to it being random. So if you want to make the claim that evolution is random then first prove that it is random and then prove the math formula you keep alluding too but never actually produced.
Neither the theory of evolution nor I make this claim. So I don't get why you brought this up other than to make a strawman argument.
Again you seem to be arguing against the theory of evolution without actually knowing what it is, even though I gave a synopsis of it. You're again being disengenuius and ignoring facts.