# Could fat drive the next step in evolution?



## olly5764 (Oct 18, 2017)

Making the bold assumption here that we all agree in some way with Darwin's theory, we all know that certain traits will cause a species to die out or survive. 
Now all of us are educated people and we all know that obesity can cause certain problems, heart failure, diabetes etc, however some people seem to suffer from these at 250 - 300 pounds whilst others seem free of them at 500 or more pounds. 
My question is this, do you think with the world's bulging waist lines, weak hearts and other such issues will evolve out of the human race leaving us a stronger yet fatter species? Or Not?


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 19, 2017)

olly5764 said:


> Making the bold assumption here that we all agree in some way with Darwin's theory, we all know that certain traits will cause a species to die out or survive.
> Now all of us are educated people and we all know that obesity can cause certain problems, heart failure, diabetes etc, however some people seem to suffer from these at 250 - 300 pounds whilst others seem free of them at 500 or more pounds.
> My question is this, do you think with the world's bulging waist lines, weak hearts and other such issues will evolve out of the human race leaving us a stronger yet fatter species? Or Not?



That's not how evolution allegedly works. Evolution doesn't have a motive to enhance the well-being of the human species or any other. The type of evolution that allegedly results in visible changes to the biology of a visible species (macroevolution) is just what happens when the weak members of a species die off, leaving the strong behind, and this is unlikely to occur in humans anymore, because as individuals, we've reached a point where we have the ability to compensate for physical weaknesses through the use of our brains and social skills. I can, of course, picture antisocial people dying off, and leaving more-social people behind, which I'm sure would have mixed results for fatness in general.

In short, I wouldn't count on evolution if you're hoping for a fatter world someday. It's a better bet to just do what I do, and stake your bets on your fate in the afterlife.


----------



## olly5764 (Oct 19, 2017)

If you actually read the post, the point about weaker genes dieing out was exactly what I said. We can only compensate for our weaknesses up to a point so yes certain things will not "evolve out" 
The fact of the matter us that if current trends continue we WILL have a fatter world. At the moment the only way to fix obesity related problems us to loose weight, while individuals may be doing this, as a species we are not. Neither trend seems ready to change so the people with weaker bodies will die off, or do your social skills have a cure for heart failure and so on?


----------



## FreeThinker (Oct 19, 2017)

For evolution to occur, the genes of the 'overtaking' members of a species must carry on, while those of the members being 'phased out' must not. 

Your scenario would only play out if those with the characteristics you mention (heart failure and diabetes, for example) did not reproduce. 

Given treatments available for all manner of health problems, most of the population will survive to reproductive age, including a greater number of those who (in times past, before medical advances) carry genes which could make them susceptible to early demise. 

So, no. 

In fact, if anything, I imagine humans are becoming increasingly 'immune' to evolution, and will become less adaptive to different conditions and less resilient to disease, because technology has made such traits unnecessary for the furtherance of the species. 

Eventually, something may catch up to this weaker species of humans that cannot be overcome by technology, and wipe everyone out.*

Then this pretty little blue ball that we've infested will have a chance to flourish. 

Interesting topic, though. 


Have a great day (and be thankful for the opportunity).



Enjoy Yourself (It's Later Than You Think) -- Guy Lombardo And The Royal Canadians (music written by Carl Sigman and lyrics by Herb Magidson)





* Unless eugenicists find a way to cease reproduction among those deemed 'unsuitable'...which would be far worse.


----------



## Tracii (Oct 19, 2017)

Darwin's Theory and general theory of evolution is too full of holes to use it as a basis for discussion


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 20, 2017)

olly5764 said:


> If you actually read the post, the point about weaker genes dieing out was exactly what I said. We can only compensate for our weaknesses up to a point so yes certain things will not "evolve out"
> The fact of the matter us that if current trends continue we WILL have a fatter world. At the moment the only way to fix obesity related problems us to loose weight, while individuals may be doing this, as a species we are not. Neither trend seems ready to change so the people with weaker bodies will die off, or do your social skills have a cure for heart failure and so on?



The problem is that heart failure, generally-speaking, doesn't prevent our species from carrying on its genes for another generation. That's only the case when people die of heart failure before their late teens, and let me put it this way; I knew a girl in high school who could not have weighed less than 600 pounds, and she had not died of heart failure by the time she graduated. In fact, she seemed very happy.

The fact is, you're *supposed* to die when you get older. We have a weird perspective on life expectancy because of modern medical science, but that doesn't, allegedly, change what evolution is.


----------



## olly5764 (Oct 20, 2017)

FreeThinker said:


> For evolution to occur, the genes of the 'overtaking' members of a species must carry on, while those of the members being 'phased out' must not.
> 
> Your scenario would only play out if those with the characteristics you mention (heart failure and diabetes, for example) did not reproduce.
> 
> ...



Now that's a fair point, (and more in line with the discussion I was hoping to provoke)


----------



## olly5764 (Oct 20, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> The problem is that heart failure, generally-speaking, doesn't prevent our species from carrying on its genes for another generation. That's only the case when people die of heart failure before their late teens, and let me put it this way; I knew a girl in high school who could not have weighed less than 600 pounds, and she had not died of heart failure by the time she graduated. In fact, she seemed very happy.
> 
> The fact is, you're *supposed* to die when you get older. We have a weird perspective on life expectancy because of modern medical science, but that doesn't, allegedly, change what evolution is.



Firstly, not dieing of heart failure before you graduate does NOT equate to not having an early death due to obesity related issues. 
Secondly, if she was that big and still healthy, she'd fall into the category that I'm suggesting evolution would tend to keep.
Thirdly, at no point did I suggest that she'd not be happy, if you die of a heart attack you can be very happy right up to the moment it hits so I'm not sure what your point regarding her happiness was.


----------



## Blockierer (Oct 20, 2017)

Nowadays, being fat is not the exception, being fat is the norm. 
Perhaps, one day in future only healthy people will be allowed to have own children. 
Then, mankind will getting fatter and fatter without having (fat) diseases.
Fascinating vision: everybody in the world is very fat.


----------



## olly5764 (Oct 20, 2017)

Blockierer said:


> Nowadays, being fat is not the exception, being fat is the norm.
> Perhaps, one day in future only healthy people will be allowed to have own children.
> Then, mankind will getting fatter and fatter without having (fat) diseases.
> Fascinating vision: everybody in the world is very fat.



Still the minority at the moment but certainly not an exception


----------



## Tad (Oct 20, 2017)

I suspect that, as a species, we won't be able to resist meddling in the genes of our progeny. Maybe not quite yet because we don't know the full impact of many gene changes, but soon enough. It will start with things like people with certain inheritable conditions going to in vitro fertilization and having embryos screened to get ones without those genes, then we'll move on to just editing those ones out, and gradually the list of things that are acceptable to do something about will grow and grow .... (and then there is the growing field of epigenetics, which may be an easier/faster form to do some tweaking?)

I suspect that this will drive our evolution much more than the old fashion form. Perhaps some of the genes we select for will help ensure health with a modern lifestyle, making people more resilient to high carb diets and less susceptible to blood pressure issues, etc. But I suspect that will be down the list behind ones that (supposedly) contribute to appearance, intelligence, and artistic or athletic performance.

In the old-fashioned form of evolution, family health can play a role in reproductive success, at least in social species like ours. Having greater financial and social support both while growing up and as a young adult can influence not just your romantic prospects but how many kids you feel comfortable having, and the childhood of those kids which can in turn influence their prospects .... It may not be a primary driver, but it is there. And we have had comparatively recent gene changes from evolution, like widespread lactose tolerance in areas where milk became an important nutrition source. So were our society to stay in a similar mode for a few centuries, I'd guess that there would be a gradual change to a larger portion of the population having better health prospects at larger sizes. But it isn't anything that I'd expect to see change dramatically or quickly.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 20, 2017)

Tracii said:


> Darwin's Theory and general theory of evolution is too full of holes to use it as a basis for discussion



Actually, evolution is one of the most thoroughly documented theories in the scientific community.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 20, 2017)

olly5764 said:


> Firstly, not dieing of heart failure before you graduate does NOT equate to not having an early death due to obesity related issues.
> Secondly, if she was that big and still healthy, she'd fall into the category that I'm suggesting evolution would tend to keep.



Evolution doesn't "keep" genes unless those genes are passed on, which is why I mention graduation. You'd need to die *very* young, or else be almost totally sterile in order for your genes to not be pass-on-able.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 20, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> Actually, evolution is one of the most thoroughly documented theories in the scientific community.



Almost. "Evolution" is actually an umbrella term for three separate biological theories; "descent with modifications," "common ancestry" and "natural selection."

So it's actually *three* of the most thoroughly documented theories in the scientific community. Lots of people have studied these three theories, and have had plenty of time to discover which ones hold water, and how much water each one holds. Not only that, but they wrote down their discoveries, and most of those writings are fairly easy to learn about, especially now, with the internet and all.

The current consensus is that basically everyone acknowledges the first, the second is plausible, but disputed, while the third is largely considered an inadequate explanation for biological complexity in its entirety. Professor James M. Tour of Rice University, who takes apart (and puts back together) cells for a living, has remarked that if macroevolution works, he doesn't know how, and would like to invite any expert in the field to explain it to him. Not too long ago, a German biology conference was dominated by a discussion of how to explain biological complexity, now that the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary model was "dead."

That doesn't mean evolution is *false,* of course, but it does mean that there's still plenty we don't know about biological complexity and its history on planet Earth.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 21, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> Almost. "Evolution" is actually an umbrella term for three separate biological theories; "descent with modifications," "common ancestry" and "natural selection."
> 
> So it's actually *three* of the most thoroughly documented theories in the scientific community. Lots of people have studied these three theories, and have had plenty of time to discover which ones hold water, and how much water each one holds. Not only that, but they wrote down their discoveries, and most of those writings are fairly easy to learn about, especially now, with the internet and all.
> 
> ...



Those three theories are compatible with one another, complementary to one another, and essentially are subsets of the overall theory of evolution.

Of course there's plenty we don't know about biological complexity and its history. We now have a large body of knowledge, however, that is expanding every day. Presently, evolutionary theory as a whole (there I go again, lumping it all together) has no serious scientific alternative. (By scientific alternative, I mean a theory that can be empirically tested and is falsifiable.)


----------



## agouderia (Oct 22, 2017)

Evolution occurs by focussing on useful, desirable or even necessary traits to be passed on for ensuring the future of a species.

If you look at animal species that are naturally fat, encased in blubber - these are all those that (mainly) live in water. From tropical (hippopotamus) to Arctic/Antarctic waters (penguins, see lions, whales, etc.). 
They all need their fat as insulation against hypothermia and protection of their body organs.

In times of central heating and all other sorts of technical amenities, this is less than ever true for humans. 
And the limited gynaecological evidence there is actually points in the other direction: Female's pelvis' are statistically growing lesser. Meaning in former times only women with greater pelvis could count on safe child birth and passed this on to their offspring. Today, with safer C-sections and other forms of medical assistance, more women with a lesser pelvis are having children, passing it on - and changing the visual female ideal, btw.

So in answering to the OPs questions - currently evolutionary trends in humans are more stacked against fat winning.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 22, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> Those three theories are compatible with one another, complementary to one another, and essentially are subsets of the overall theory of evolution.
> 
> Of course there's plenty we don't know about biological complexity and its history. We now have a large body of knowledge, however, that is expanding every day. Presently, evolutionary theory as a whole (there I go again, lumping it all together) has no serious scientific alternative. (By scientific alternative, I mean a theory that can be empirically tested and is falsifiable.)



A scientific theory is a theory that can be shown to potentially be true through experimentation, testing or measurement, and actually, the main problem with all theories of life is just how hard it is to measurably prove them. There are actually several theories about where life came from (panspermia, for instance,) but the main obstacle to using measurement here is that evidence *against* common ancestry is not necessarily evidence *for* any/all of these theories, nor is the reverse; that evidence against these theories is evidence for common ancestry, true either. For this reason, the scientific enterprise has been largely split on this issue. Genetic mapping provides some evidence in support of common ancestry, but the fossil record has consistently provided evidence against it.

As for natural selection itself, it's so poorly-supported, that I'm convinced the only reason it's survived this long is the one that you just provided; it's the only available explanation if you want to avoid appealing to an intelligent creator of life. If, however, you have no such biases against the concept of the intelligent creation of life, and can therefore afford to be open-minded about where the evidence really leads, you begin to see that the only answer we have so far is; *"We just don't know yet."*


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 22, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> A scientific theory is a theory that can be shown to potentially be true through experimentation, testing or measurement, and actually, the main problem with all theories of life is just how hard it is to measurably prove them. There are actually several theories about where life came from (panspermia, for instance,) but the main obstacle to using measurement here is that evidence *against* common ancestry is not necessarily evidence *for* any/all of these theories, nor is the reverse; that evidence against these theories is evidence for common ancestry, true either. For this reason, the scientific enterprise has been largely split on this issue. Genetic mapping provides some evidence in support of common ancestry, but the fossil record has consistently provided evidence against it.
> 
> As for natural selection itself, it's so poorly-supported, that I'm convinced the only reason it's survived this long is the one that you just provided; it's the only available explanation if you want to avoid appealing to an intelligent creator of life. If, however, you have no such biases against the concept of the intelligent creation of life, and can therefore afford to be open-minded about where the evidence really leads, you begin to see that the only answer we have so far is; *"We just don't know yet."*



A scientific theory is one that is falsifiable. A theory can never be proven to be _absolutely_ true. As more and more tests are conducted and the tested theory remains unfalsified, the probability that the theory is true becomes greater and greater, but it never hits 100 percent. It's like approaching a target by going half the distance at a time. You can get ridiculously close, but you can never get there. 

I have no biases against the concept of an intelligent creator of life - I just don't think it's a logical possibility. I don't think that's where the evidence leads, and I believe the probability is so low that it's not a reasonable expectation. I do agree that we just don't know yet - about any of the big questions concerning life or the universe. Our minds may not be advanced enough to ever grasp it all.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 22, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> A scientific theory is one that is falsifiable.



That's wrong. If I theorize that there are 27 prime numbers between 1 and 100, that's a theory which is falsifiable, but it is in no way scientific.



fatgrllvr said:


> A theory can never be proven to be _absolutely_ true.



That also is wrong. The once-theory that the world is round can now be proven absolutely true, now that we can see it from space.



fatgrllvr said:


> As more and more tests are conducted and the tested theory remains unfalsified, the probability that the theory is true becomes greater and greater, but it never hits 100 percent.



I find it funny that you say this after claiming that you can't prove a theory to be absolutely true. Unless this claim, by you, is absolutely true, I have no reason to agree with it.

Keep in mind that probability must refer to a real thing in order to be a statement of truth. Otherwise, it's a falsehood.

Now, suppose that a man goes to the grocery store every week to pick up a pack of Jarina's Bacon. However, unbeknownst to him, the store owner just got a huge load of Kalman Bacan, and wants to get rid of it, but no one's buying it. So, he replaces the labels on the Kalman with Jarina's labels. The man may buy Kalman bacon without meaning to, and every week, will have more and more evidence that he's buying Jarina's bacon. However, that does nothing to change the fact that he is being deceived. Each week, he finds more evidence that he's buying Jarina's bacon, and each week, it has no effect whatsoever on whether he actually is or not.

This is why I don't put much stock in this kind of simplistic view of science. It provides proof of nothing and goes nowhere. In my experience, people rarely punt to this kind of anti-knowledge unless they have nowhere else to go in defending an unsupportable assertion.



fatgrllvr said:


> I have no biases against the concept of an intelligent creator of life - I just don't think it's a logical possibility.



There is, of course, a real probability calculus for determining authentic probability. However, for declaring something *logically impossible,* proof is required.



fatgrllvr said:


> I don't think that's where the evidence leads, and I believe the probability is so low that it's not a reasonable expectation.



As I just pointed out, the method you're using to determine probability is not adequate to provide evidence of things in a real-world sense.



fatgrllvr said:


> I do agree that we just don't know yet - about any of the big questions concerning life or the universe. Our minds may not be advanced enough to ever grasp it all.



Or we may be misinformed about certain things, based on deceptive or missing data.


----------



## FreeThinker (Oct 22, 2017)

Einstein: God does not play dice. 

Heisenberg: Are you certain? 


-- National Lampoon​


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 22, 2017)

FreeThinker said:


> Einstein: God does not play dice.
> 
> Heisenberg: Are you certain?
> 
> ...



Good one. I like this.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 22, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> That's wrong. If I theorize that there are 27 prime numbers between 1 and 100, that's a theory which is falsifiable, but it is in no way scientific.



If it's not scientific, then it's not falsifiable.



TwoSwords said:


> That also is wrong. The once-theory that the world is round can now be proven absolutely true, now that we can see it from space.



Nope. We've just falsified the theory that the earth is flat. Anyway, it's not perfectly round - just very close.



TwoSwords said:


> I find it funny that you say this after claiming that you can't prove a theory to be absolutely true. Unless this claim, by you, is absolutely true, I have no reason to agree with it.



I never said you had to. Never expected you to, either.



TwoSwords said:


> Keep in mind that probability must refer to a real thing in order to be a statement of truth. Otherwise, it's a falsehood.
> 
> Now, suppose that a man goes to the grocery store every week to pick up a pack of Jarina's Bacon. However, unbeknownst to him, the store owner just got a huge load of Kalman Bacan, and wants to get rid of it, but no one's buying it. So, he replaces the labels on the Kalman with Jarina's labels. The man may buy Kalman bacon without meaning to, and every week, will have more and more evidence that he's buying Jarina's bacon. However, that does nothing to change the fact that he is being deceived. Each week, he finds more evidence that he's buying Jarina's bacon, and each week, it has no effect whatsoever on whether he actually is or not.



Obviously falsehoods don't have much probability of being anything but false. 
The guy who keeps buying Kalman has _zero_ evidence that he's buying Jarina's, no matter how long he keeps buying it. His mind is only reinforcing his mistaken preconception.



TwoSwords said:


> This is why I don't put much stock in this kind of simplistic view of science. It provides proof of nothing and goes nowhere. In my experience, people rarely punt to this kind of anti-knowledge unless they have nowhere else to go in defending an unsupportable assertion.



Just can't resist being condescending, can you? 



TwoSwords said:


> As I just pointed out, the method you're using to determine probability is not adequate to provide evidence of things in a real-world sense.



Nope. Probability only provides information about how probable something is. 



TwoSwords said:


> Or we may be misinformed about certain things, based on deceptive or missing data.



And?

Okay, we're way off the thread here. Can we agree to disagree and drop this?


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 22, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> Okay, we're way off the thread here. Can we agree to disagree and drop this?



Well, I wish this was the only thing in your reply, because I'd very much like to be able to do that, or to continue this discussion by PM, but there's a lot more here, and to keep it fresh, I'll respond to your points in inverse order.



fatgrllvr said:


> And?



And what?



fatgrllvr said:


> Nope. Probability only provides information about how probable something is.



Probability is itself a type of evidence, when it is correctly identified and calculated, and all evidence can be used to make a conclusion more likely than it would have been without it; usually in specific ways.



fatgrllvr said:


> Just can't resist being condescending, can you?



The claim that you can't be certain about anything is self-refuting and patently absurd, yet I've heard it, or some permutation of it, from literally dozens of internet posters and commentors who were backed into corners by logic. How am I supposed to react to it?



fatgrllvr said:


> Obviously falsehoods don't have much probability of being anything but false.
> The guy who keeps buying Kalman has _zero_ evidence that he's buying Jarina's, no matter how long he keeps buying it. His mind is only reinforcing his mistaken preconception.



Of course he has evidence; the evidence of the label on the package he bought. Nothing obvious about this falsehood.



fatgrllvr said:


> Nope. We've just falsified the theory that the earth is flat. Anyway, it's not perfectly round - just very close.



Round
1a (1) :having every part of the surface or circumference equidistant from the center (2) :cylindrical a round peg
1b :approximately round . a round face

Therefore, it has been definitively shown that the Earth is round, by definition 1b. That was the theory, not the Earth being flat. You're mistaken here.



fatgrllvr said:


> If it's not scientific, then it's not falsifiable.



verb (used with object), falsified, falsifying.
1.
to make false or incorrect, especially so as to deceive:
to falsify income-tax reports.
2.
to alter fraudulently.
3.
to represent falsely:
He falsified the history of his family to conceal his humble origins.
4.
to show or prove to be false; disprove:
to falsify a theory.

Nothing in any of those definitions about science being necessary for falsifiability. This just sounds like scientism to me.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 23, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> Well, I wish this was the only thing in your reply, because I'd very much like to be able to do that, or to continue this discussion by PM, but there's a lot more here, and to keep it fresh, I'll respond to your points in inverse order.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Arghhh. Suffice it to say that (a) I disagree with most of what you're saying, (b) we're not likely to resolve our differences, and (c) this argument is descending into nit-picking. We're just hogging this thread, and I'm letting it go.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 23, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> ...I'm letting it go.



Fair enough.


----------



## jakub (Oct 25, 2017)

Tracii said:


> Darwin's Theory and general theory of evolution is too full of holes to use it as a basis for discussion



I can't believe what I'm reading...


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 25, 2017)

jakub said:


> I can't believe what I'm reading...



It is a bit of a shock at first, especially if you've only heard the one-sided arguments of the typical college science textbook.


----------



## jakub (Oct 28, 2017)

Yeah right. The shock is that somebody in current times can even think that, maybe earth is flat - who knows... (maybe some rapper is going to answer that).


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 28, 2017)

jakub said:


> Yeah right. The shock is that somebody in current times can even think that, maybe earth is flat - who knows... (maybe some rapper is going to answer that).



A large number of biologists in biology conferences apparently think that, so I'm not going to argue with them.


----------



## John Smith (Oct 28, 2017)

olly5764 said:


> Making the bold assumption here that we all agree in some way with Darwin's theory, we all know that certain traits will cause a species to die out or survive.
> Now all of us are educated people and we all know that obesity can cause certain problems, heart failure, diabetes etc, however some people seem to suffer from these at 250 - 300 pounds whilst others seem free of them at 500 or more pounds.
> My question is this, do you think with the world's bulging waist lines, weak hearts and other such issues will evolve out of the human race leaving us a stronger yet fatter species? Or Not?



Neither really the one or the other. People still naturally adapts themselves through various environmental conditions over generations regarding their tolerance through it, therefore at some point there could being over time some people developping a resilience to see their health spiral out into disarray even after have gained a markedly amount of weight: but unless to be either genetically-enhanced, granted by body-enhancing cryptic capabilities or being born a somewhat genetic singularity, I highly doubt that the human race is predestined someday to mutate into a breed of roly-poly superhumans.


----------



## John Smith (Oct 28, 2017)

Tracii said:


> Darwin's Theory and general theory of evolution is too full of holes to use it as a basis for discussion



Every single thing, for mere hypothesis to which most people perceive as "reality" contents their holes. So I am not surprized that a mere theory developped nearly two centuries ago when modern Sciences weren't that refined then that things like Spiritism or Scientific Racism were predominant in this society, could have indeed his lot of holes regarding a XXIth-century viewpoint, same as for most _everything_ .

But, following this same way of thought, even our mere presence here is philosophically, pragmatically, forethoughtfully speaking way absurb.


----------



## John Smith (Oct 28, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> A large number of biologists in biology conferences apparently think that, so I'm not going to argue with them.



Which "large number" , specifically (since we are roughly seven billions and half of human souls, then that the number of specialists in biology across the world may easilyy neighbouring the ten million) ? 

Also, we all know those "large number" of doctors still thinking religiously that being skinny is the only healthy way of life then that being fat is a potential risk for laziness, hedonism, diabetes then heart diseases when most everybody in society run a more-or-less hedonistic first, the that scientifically speaking there still aren't authentic proofs of pragmatic correlation between obesity (even abdominal obesity) and all those aforementioned illnesses.
It still doesn't stop a lot of ignorant, god-fearing folks to believe to this crap since decades.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 28, 2017)

John Smith said:


> It still doesn't stop a lot of ignorant, god-fearing folks to believe to this crap since decades.



Admittedly, biology is my own weakest subject, but I'm fairly certain that the contrary evidence of the fossil record, or the countless "missing links" in the evolutionary chain, or the incomplete outline that neo-Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory still consists of (I.E.: even some of the greatest biologists in the world will admit to not understanding how it works,) all serve as adequate cause for doubting that natural selection is an adequate explanatory hypothesis to explain biological diversity as it is today.

Your reply has not addressed any of these issues, or any of the examples that I gave in my past replies. In fact, all you've done here is to dismiss the theory's detractors, based on straw man assumptions about their points of view.

That's not adequate, first, because it's an argument ad hominem, but of course, also because of the simple fact that it takes more to refute a position than just treating it dismissively.

If, on the other hand, you were genuinely unaware of the information I posted in my past replies, please go back and take another look at it. Maybe you'll learn about some of the people involved in biology and evolution today, like James Tour, who performs nano-machine operations on living cells, and has issued an open invitation to any evolutionary expert to teach him how macro-evolution is supposed to work, or Francisco Ayala; one of the greatest evolutionary biologists on Earth, who also happens to be a "god-fearing folk."

Learning is fun, and more people should do it.


----------



## John Smith (Nov 5, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> Admittedly, biology is my own weakest subject, but I'm fairly certain that the contrary evidence of the fossil record, or the countless "missing links" in the evolutionary chain, or the incomplete outline that neo-Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory still consists of (I.E.: even some of the greatest biologists in the world will admit to not understanding how it works,) all serve as adequate cause for doubting that natural selection is an adequate explanatory hypothesis to explain biological diversity as it is today.
> 
> Your reply has not addressed any of these issues, or any of the examples that I gave in my past replies. In fact, all you've done here is to dismiss the theory's detractors, based on straw man assumptions about their points of view.
> 
> ...



You have right: biology truly is your weakest.


----------



## quantumbits (Dec 17, 2017)

What about epigenetics.How might it tie into this? I'm not a strongly knowledgeable person on this subject, so I googled and will put a link here:
https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/what-is-epigenetics/

The first time I bumped into this topic I was reading a study about bullying. Forgive me, but I can't remember it clearly as I'd like. What I do remember is they were looking at possible epigenetic effects of bullying. So a boy grows up being bullied and hten later has a child. They were looking to see if maybe the father passed on something to their child. And--if I recall right--they believed something was passed on--or changed.

I agree with others that if a person isn't killed before reproductive age then their traits will carry on. However, this doesn't preclude us from finding people with special genes or gene configurations particularly friendly to obesity. This might not be a great example, but it might be a start:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/april/19-double-edged-genes


> Guevara-Aguirre and Laron have differing views when it comes to connecting Laron syndrome with another deadly disease: diabetes. Although Laron has diagnosed diabetes in a handful of his patients, Guevara-Aguirre says he has never seen a case of diabetes among Laron patients in Ecuador, even though their weight should put them at high risk. In their 2011 paper, he and Longo reported that of the 99 Laron patients they studied, none had diabetes despite the prevalence of obesity in the group. In contrast, among the patients’ relatives, 5 percent of deaths were from diabetes.
> 
> Normally, people who are overweight face a greater risk for insulin resistance, a condition in which the body does not use insulin effectively to shuttle glucose into liver, fat, and muscle cells. To compensate, the pancreas secretes more insulin. In some cases, the amount of glucose in the bloodstream overwhelms the pancreas’s ability to keep up; in these cases, insulin resistance progresses to pre-diabetes or full-blown diabetes.
> 
> ...


And regarding insulin, it's not just how many calories we take in, but maybe when/how we take them in:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/294226.php

In the study, the mice received the same amount of calories per day, but gorging it all in one meal was shown to create prediabetic conditions, spurred on by insulin resistance. This led to more belly fat and inflammation. Longterm, this might increase risk of heart disease or type-2 diabetes.


----------



## hommecreux (Jan 10, 2018)

Wow. Reading the last 2 pages of insanity has been, if nothing else, fun, yet concerning.

1. I can't believe people are trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution, seeing as we understand, and have more evidence for the theory of evolution than we do for gravity, or pretty much any other scientific theory in existence. 


2. I think that they human body evolved (yes, evolved), to it's current form due to selection pressures that range from being a social species and having a need to procreate, to the need for a body shape and size that was/is best acclimated for the environment that we exist in, all the way down to the gravity of the earth. We don't have computer simulations that could possibly take into account every single variable that led to the shape of the human body as it is today and we are currently in a transitional form that is still being shaped by selection pressures. So it might be a moot point to try to argue for against the proposition that fat is going to drive the next stage of evolution, as it is only one of many variables. Until pretty recently natural selection pressures shaped the human form to best fit the needs of what the whole species needs, and unfortunately, there is a reason why people of size have more health problems. WE WEREN'T MEANT TO BE THIS FAT! Myself included! However, as selection pressures change, along with the environments that we build for ourselves, social structures, and possibly planet that we exist on changes, we could find that being slightly fatter, in say, a zero gravity environment might be beneficial. But right now, with our current genetics and limitations on technology it isn't healthy or beneficial to the species for us to be so overweight. 



3.Point in case - There's a reason there are so many threads devoted to troubles with having intercourse, people want to have sex, and can't or have problems with the act, that would/could be a pretty big problem in the future if everyone on the planet is 300lbs +.


----------



## UserNameName (Jan 11, 2018)

I can't believe how people still resist evolution. You want to tell me that God used evolution to help populate the Earth? Fine by me. Evolution and religion are far from mutually exclusive. If I were God, why wouldn't I want to create a nice little mechanism to help perfect my creations? But to say evolution doesn't exist is just absurd.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 11, 2018)

UserNameName said:


> I can't believe how people still resist evolution. You want to tell me that God used evolution to help populate the Earth? Fine by me. Evolution and religion are far from mutually exclusive. If I were God, why wouldn't I want to create a nice little mechanism to help perfect my creations? But to say evolution doesn't exist is just absurd.



If I recall the substance of the debate, the first person to mention God was the person trying to *defend* neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Please re-read my points if there's something about them you don't understand. For example, I don't believe I ever said "evolution doesn't exist." I think what I said was that it seems to be an insufficient explanatory hypothesis to explain biological complexity on its own. That's a very different kind of claim.


----------



## hommecreux (Jan 14, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> If I recall the substance of the debate, the first person to mention God was the person trying to *defend* neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Please re-read my points if there's something about them you don't understand. For example, I don't believe I ever said "evolution doesn't exist." I think what I said was that it seems to be an insufficient explanatory hypothesis to explain biological complexity on its own. That's a very different kind of claim.



If you know of any demonstrable evidence that anything other than selection pressures has shaped human evolution, you know you can pick up your Noble Prize and get millions of dollars in funding from organizations (scientific and religious) for providing the evidence that the whole world is looking for right?

Due to 99% of experts (across essentially all fields that remotely relate to the study of evolution) coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is the best *current* explanation that fits the evidence, follows where the evidence leads, and has been proven in every case, study, and lab experiment; I would love to know what you believe to be insufficient in it's explanatory power, and ability to make demonstrable predictions?


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 14, 2018)

hommecreux said:


> If you know of any demonstrable evidence that anything other than selection pressures has shaped human evolution, you know you can pick up your Noble Prize and get millions of dollars in funding from organizations (scientific and religious) for providing the evidence that the whole world is looking for right?



Natural selection is completely indemonstrable, as is common ancestry. Only descent with modifications can be demonstrated, and that's basically uncontested. I think you're holding contrary theories to a standard of proof that you don't hold evolution to.

Plus, embracing an inadequate theory because you don't know of any adequate ones is just Evolution of the Gaps. You're punting to faith to plug up gaps in the reasoning. That's not valid logic.



hommecreux said:


> Due to *99%* of experts (across essentially all fields that remotely relate to the study of evolution) coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is the best *current* explanation that fits the evidence, follows where the evidence leads, and has been proven in every case, study, and lab experiment; I would love to know what you believe to be insufficient in it's explanatory power, and ability to make demonstrable predictions?



Firstly, I don't know where you're getting this number from, but it hasn't come up in any of my research on the topic. I found that over 30,000 scientists working in America alone consider Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory to be inadequate or doubtful, so that would mean that America would need over 3 Million scientists at least in the fields of evolutionary biology alone. In fact, the number is closer to 400,000 biologists in all fields combined, and the US is one of the countries where belief in Neo Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is relatively standard, due to its philosophical ramifications.

Secondly, you don't determine the truth or falsehood of a proposition with a head count. That's a philosophical error called the Bandwagon Fallacy.

Finally, you *do* determine the truth or falsehood of a proposition with a study of the evidence, which is why I presented good evidence against the adequacy of Natural Selection, and so far, that evidence hasn't even been addressed on this thread.


----------



## hommecreux (Jan 15, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> Natural selection is completely indemonstrable, as is common ancestry. Only descent with modifications can be demonstrated, and that's basically uncontested. I think you're holding contrary theories to a standard of proof that you don't hold evolution to.
> 
> Plus, embracing an inadequate theory because you don't know of any adequate ones is just Evolution of the Gaps. You're punting to faith to plug up gaps in the reasoning. That's not valid logic.
> 
> ...



1. If you don't accept that transitional forms exist, and scientists have done controlled experiments showing that speciation occurs; if you don't accept that the theory of evolution makes testable predictions that have evidence proving that the theory is correct; and then you don't recognize that I said the following ---

*"Due to 99% of experts (across essentially all fields that remotely relate to the study of evolution) coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation that fits the evidence, follows where the evidence leads, and has been proven in every case, study, and lab experiment;"*

Best CURRENT explanation. Then you aren't arguing against my point.
And if you want to deal with things in terms of absolutes, then you are dealing in absurdities. We can only deal with the evidence and information derived from the evidence that we currently have and test the theory in every conceivable way. Humanity by necessity deals with reality in a probabilistic fashion. 

2. 
Can you point me in the direction of the study that shows that 30k accredited scientists in the U.S. and 400k biologists don't believe in the theory of evolution? I honestly want to see where that information comes from. Sorry if I overestimated a bit, it was 98% of accredited scientists, not 99%. Here are the real numbers as of last year ----
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/

3. 
You are absolutely correct! We don't deal with truth or falsehood due to how many people believe something, or based on the word of an authority. We deal with it in terms of what can be proven in reality. Which is why I asked you to provide me the evidence that shows that there is literally anything other than evolution and selection pressures that can be proven with evidence to be true. I also asked you to provide me what you believe to be insufficient in it's explanatory power, and ability to make demonstrable predictions. You did neither. 
And in terms of the "evidence" presented, first, that is not evidence, that is an argument, and I have yet to see any sort of acceptance that those are valid arguments in even a slightly significant portion of the scientific community. 
And trying to poke holes in the fossil record is basically laughed at by anyone that has seen all of the transitional forms that exist currently in museums. Not only that, but not having a complete picture of exactly what all of the mechanisms are or every single transitional form is not an argument against evolution. That's like saying gravity can't work or doesn't exist because we don't understand all of the underlying properties that give atoms their mass, or can't measure the exact amount of energy released at moment of the big bang. You're dealing in absolutes and it makes absolutely no sense. 



By the way, I'm not attacking you personally, but armchair philosophy and armchair biology does not a scientific theory make.

Let me ask you one thing TwoSwords, what would convince you that evolution is true? 

For me, you could convince me rather quickly that evolution is false, or needs serious revision by presenting evidence that proves that it is false. Like Bill Nye said in that debate he had a while back - Give me one piece of evidence that there is a fossil that is someplace it shouldn't be in the earth's crust and you will change the world.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 16, 2018)

Now, for the purpose of clarifying my points further, I'm going to respond to your points out of order.



hommecreux said:


> By the way, I'm not attacking you personally, but armchair philosophy and armchair biology does not a scientific theory make.



I think your assumption here is that my knowledge of these topics arises purely from casual discussion (the working definition of "armchair anything,") however, I actually do very little discussing of anything outside of the internet. All of this information I'm giving you comes from works I've read on biology and philosophy, and podcasts released by various experts on the subject, both in my spare time, and as a researcher in the field of medicine.

If, however, you mean to say that any sort of philosophy or biology which is not being used to make a living is unreliable, that's a statement with huge ramifications, because that would mean that all education from books is worthless. I don't think you meant to claim that.

Lastly, on this point, I don't need to make a scientific theory, because my point was not that I have, or am advancing, any contrary scientific theories. My point was only that Neo-Darwinian Evolution has failed to provide sufficient evidence of its adequacy over the course of its run, despite numerous opportunities to do so. Since I'm merely questioning the evidence, the burden of proof is on evolutionists, though I don't like to resort to that sort of tactic. Quite frankly, whether natural selection is true or not makes no difference to me, and it wouldn't effect my beliefs or values one iota. Yet, I often get the impression that this is not true of many other people online, who refuse to look at the evidence against ND-evolution with an open mind (and like yourself, I'm not attacking you personally when I say this.)



hommecreux said:


> Let me ask you one thing TwoSwords, what would convince you that evolution is true?





hommecreux said:


> If you don't accept that transitional forms exist, and scientists have done controlled experiments showing that speciation occurs



I'm 100% convinced that certain types of evolution are true. I'm convinced that microscopic life, like Malaria, can evolve to resist the effects of the drugs used against it. I'm 100% persuaded that life-forms descend with modifications, because I'm not identical to my father.

As for common ancestry, for that, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be true, but nor do I see any reason to think it is true, presently. If as little as 1% of available fossils were transitional forms, I would consider that sufficient evidence that common ancestry is the most rational thing to believe, though still not 100% proven.

However, for natural selection, there would need to be some evidence through testing; evidence that shows how a species can be made stronger through artificially pushing them to their limits. So far, the closest we've seen have been things like the peppered moth experiment, which were based on percentages, rather than one creature actually evolving into another. In order for man to have been produced by evolution, the rate of evolution would need to be much faster than is usually supposed; fast enough to be tested in this way.

As for evidence of speciation, it's still quite weak. There was some iguana evidence discovered at one point, but the iguanas were never studied sufficiently to prove anything. There was also an experiment done on fruit flies, but at best, that only led to the fruit flies *preferring* those who'd been in their own environments as mates, not to their *inability* to mate with others as a result of being a different species.



hommecreux said:


> if you don't accept that the theory of evolution makes testable predictions that have evidence proving that the theory is correct



To claim that the success of some predictions (not all of them by any means) proves a theory accurate is no better than soothsaying. It's like cutting open a fish to prove what tomorrow's weather will be like, making your prediction from studying the fish bones, and because you happened to be right, claiming that fish predict the weather. Predictions of the future do not prove a theory true, and they especially don't prove it in the case of evolution, which, remember, is three theories, not just one, and even then, only seems to be right about twice a day.



hommecreux said:


> And if you want to deal with things in terms of absolutes, then you are dealing in absurdities.



Not absurdities. Philosophy. In philosophy, it is absolutely true that we can know certain things. We know this through logic. If we couldn't know anything, we wouldn't be able to know that. But we can know that, so it follows that we can know certain things. It's logically impossible for truths to not equal themselves, or to be equal to falsehoods. Mathematical claims are essentially certain, and so are many other logical claims.

Now, in science, we don't use this standard, because science is about evidence and induction, but even in science, there are rules to follow, to determine whether a theory should be considered a fact. One of those rules is to not lie about what you're claiming, and another is to examine the balance of the available, relevant evidence, and compile it responsibly. Most popular-level defenders of "evolution" violate that first rule by using the word "evolution" as an umbrella term for multiple, separate theories with vastly different amounts of evidence to support them, so-as to sneak unsupported theories into the "fact" realm under the guise of respectable science, as I've said. It's equivocation; a *philosophical* trick to deceive, and is therefore *not science.*

They violate the second rule by focusing on isolated, experimental findings while hiding (or failing to take into account) the broader evidence of the fossil record, which I'll get to in a minute.



hommecreux said:


> Humanity by necessity deals with reality in a probabilistic fashion.



These are not scientific claims; they're philosophical. This is what I mean whenever I tell people we have some of the worst scientists, because they've stopped doing science, and are making amateur assumptions about philosophy.



hommecreux said:


> Can you point me in the direction of the study that shows that 30k accredited scientists in the U.S. and 400k biologists don't believe in the theory of evolution?



This is a strawman. I never said that. I said that they don't consider neo-darwinian evolution adequate, or they doubt it. However, this is not the same thing as "the theory of evolution," which, as I said, is an inaccurate and misleading umbrella term for confusing the issue.



hommecreux said:


> Sorry if I overestimated a bit, it was 98% of accredited scientists, not 99%.



It's not even that. The article you cite says that these are specifically 98% of those affiliated with the AAAS, not accredited scientists in general. Furthermore, this poll makes no distinction between one kind of scientist and another kind (a large percentage of those in the AAAS are not biologists) while the numbers I presented were specifically from those working in the field of biology. If a physicist tells me ND-evolution is true, his opinion holds no more weight than my own, because he has no experience with ND-evolution, despite being an accredited scientist. Bill Nye, who you cite, is one of the most radical, fringe popularisers on the scene today. Almost no professional biologist agrees with Nye's views. People only believe him because he was on television, and wrote a book on a field of science that he himself had never worked in.

However, this poll doesn't even address common ancestry *or* ND-evolution. It only refers to the question "did humans evolve over time." That's a question isolated to the first type of evolution; descent with modifications, which everyone already believes. It's like they say; those who say they have no need for philosophy are the ones most likely to be deceived by it.



hommecreux said:


> I have yet to see any sort of acceptance that those are valid arguments in even a slightly significant portion of the scientific community.



The "scientific community" is not the standard for determining the validity of an argument. That's the fallacy of appealing to authority.



hommecreux said:


> And trying to poke holes in the fossil record is basically laughed at by anyone that has seen all of the transitional forms that exist currently in museums.



First off, laugh if you want to, but a laugh is not proof of anything. It just shows you don't have a good response to the objection.

On the topic of transitional fossils, I've actually studied the evidence for those, and frankly, most of them are seen as "early ancestors" to current animals (which could well be. Don't get me wrong,) but a "transition" implies more than just a few similarities, or a connection to one other organism. It implies a midway point between one distinct animal and another, and in this area, the fossil record has been virtually silent, providing no indication that we're not just assuming connections from minor similarities between distinct species.

Over the time since Darwin, archeologists have done their work diligently, uncovering over 100 billion fossils, over 100 million of which are now in museums, but of all of those, not one represented a clear transition between one type of creature and another. We have, instead, found many fully-formed species of even more distinct types, unrelated to those that came before and would come after, which also require transitional forms to explain their own existence. The fossil record has been nearly uniform in its reputiation of common ancestry. It's only sneaky philosophical assumptions and genetic mapping that have provided counter-evidence, and even then, not greater than what we have in the fossil record.

Charles Darwin recognized that there were large gaps in the fossil record, but the difference was that he could hide behind that, and say that when those gaps were filled in, it would support his theory. Now that we have been filling in those gaps, and found evidence against, rather than for, his theories, it seems perfectly reasonable to question the assumptions that historical science has made, which is now being done.

Furthermore, if you're going to laugh at the fossil record, I suggest you retract your challenge, where you said...



hommecreux said:


> Give me one piece of evidence that there is a fossil that is someplace it shouldn't be in the earth's crust and you will change the world.



This challenge is disingenuous if you're not willing to look at the evidence of the fossil record against common ancestry.

As for changing the world, it's unlikely that anything said here will do that. People don't believe in ND-evolution because it's backed up by science. The belief system rests on faith and appeals to authority.



hommecreux said:


> That's like saying gravity can't work or doesn't exist because we don't understand all of the underlying properties that give atoms their mass, or can't measure the exact amount of energy released at moment of the big bang. You're dealing in absolutes and it makes absolutely no sense.



Not at all. There's a big difference between the Big Bang Theory, which is well-supported, and ND-Evolution. To give an example, if the BBT is true, we should expect to see the universe expanding, motions of energy, indicating momentum, and a certain proportion of light elements in the universe, based on its initial conditions. Sure enough, as time has gone on, and science has advanced, we discovered the expansion rate of the universe, microwave background radiation in space, and the correct proportion of light elements to heavy (very recent information, this,) just as predicted by the standard Big Bang model. If, however, it had turned out that the microwave background radiation wasn't behaving as our model predicted, it would be rational to question it, which is why we should question ND-evolution.

Gravity is another good example, because there's so much evidence that it doesn't work the way we originally thought it did. When evidence was found that Newtonian models of gravity didn't work under certain circumstances, the theory was modified, and we should also be willing to modify our theories of evolution to deal with new evidence; not just try to cover up the evidence with uncomfortable laughter, dismissive behavior and logical tricks.

Now, it took a long time to write all of this out, and I'm going to be late for work, so I hope you'll respect the value of my time and consider some of it before reacting, please.

And if you're going to laugh (which is good for your health,) for pity's sake, try to laugh at something that's funny. I suggest the early Simpsons or the Addams Family.


----------



## LarryTheNoodleGuy (Jan 18, 2018)

olly5764 said:


> Making the bold assumption here that we all agree in some way with Darwin's theory, we all know that certain traits will cause a species to die out or survive.
> Now all of us are educated people and we all know that obesity can cause certain problems, heart failure, diabetes etc, however some people seem to suffer from these at 250 - 300 pounds whilst others seem free of them at 500 or more pounds.
> My question is this, do you think with the world's bulging waist lines, weak hearts and other such issues will evolve out of the human race leaving us a stronger yet fatter species? Or Not?



Fascinating times.


----------



## hommecreux (Jan 18, 2018)

Welp, I tried to reply, and when I went to post it the browser refreshed and let me know that I had been logged out. But hey, I tried! 

At this point, I've got class in the morning and there isn't much new content worth addressing so I'll make this short and sweet. 
You've not provided any evidence because you don't have any, nor do you have anything to support your claims, so yes it is armchair philosophy and biology. If the best that you can do is say that you have personal experience, and read books and listen to podcasts (and then didn't provide sources for those either, which makes it even more curious), I am not going to take someone who tells me their personal experiences should convince me seriously. I have big personal experiences to, sometimes they happen when I'm on the toilet. Does that prove you wrong? <---- laughing here

You didn't say anything new, and if you actually understood the logical fallacies that you are violating, you might have a chance at correcting your thoughts, and might even reign in that huge ego. Thinking that anything has to be absolute to be true is a red herring and does not apply to the real world. If you believe in absolutes, then how know you are sure about there being absolutes, and what make sure you sure about that, and that? Can you prove the logical absolutes are absolutely true? If so how do you know? The best that us humans can do to being absolutely sure about anything is believing that the pillars of logic are true, and that my senses are true to the best of my knowledge. I don't rely on them because they are absolute, nor do I put faith in them. I believe that they are true because in practice they have never failed me. It is out of necessity that I rely on logic and my senses because there is no other choice but to trust them. A person would have to be omnipotent to be absolutely sure about anything as best as I can tell... are you omnipotent? Or do you just think that you have been informed as such by someone you believe is? <--- laughing again


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 19, 2018)

...And, like clockwork, we are back at terminal undercutting again.

Every time I discuss any topic of fact or reason with anyone online, then present evidence to support my conclusions, it always ends with the other person using terminal undercutting to sabotage their own position. Of course, this means the person has chosen not to be convinced, and is so determined to not be convinced by facts, that they are willing to attack *the foundations of fact itself,* in order to escape the inevitable conclusion. That's when I know that I've explained my point well.

Now, before I address any of your specific responses, I want to draw attention to the central problem with everything that you've said; it *assumes* logic is true, while also *disregarding* logic when it becomes inconvenient. For instance, you claim that every claim needs to be proven by some other claim and so on to infinity, when you say...

"If you believe in absolutes, then how know you are sure about there being absolutes, and what make sure you sure about that, and that?"

Well, what about that claim? Does that claim need to be proven by other claims, and so on to infinity? This is the problem with skepticism. Skeptics don't apply their skepticism to their own skeptical assumptions about philosophy; only to the views of *others,* which they want to* avoid.* Pyrrhonian Skepticism of this sort is self-refuting when applied to itself, and therefore *cannot* be true.

Furthermore, my belief in the reality of objective truth is a properly-basic belief, grounded in the simple fact that no contrary understanding is coherent. To claim that truth is nonexistent is to claim that truth is false, that (X) is equal to (not X.) Nothing could be less rational than that, and so, for that reason, I never, ever make the ridiculous mistake of questioning the reality of truth, as you have just done.

Furthermore, if truth were not real, there would be no point in arguing for evolution or anything else. No evidence that I brought forth would be worth anything, if the person I was talking to had a deep, inner feeling that I was wrong. Unless you can grade evidence in order of more-to-less valid, no piece of evidence should ever be treated preferentially, and the tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist is just as warranted in his beliefs on the basis of his feelings and suspicions, as the most experienced and decorated of biologists or physicists, who've studied and worked in their own field for years.

Indeed, if any of that were the case, your complaints about me not citing specific sources, or citing personal research (which you incorrectly refer to as "experiences,") would be wholly disingenuous, since no source I cite is any more valid than myself.

Now, I don't think any of that is true. I don't think you do either. Please, think twice before turning to Pyrrhonian Skepticism as an escape route. There is no escape that way; only chaos and voluntary ignorance.

Now, with that absurdity put to bed...

"If you understood the fallacies you are violating"

"Committing," you mean. Which fallacies am I committing, and why? If I am committing a fallacy, and you have the ability to tell me about it, by all means do so, and I'll listen.

"Thinking that anything has to be absolute to be true"

This is not at all what I said. Please re-read it.

"The best that us humans can do to being absolutely sure about anything is believing that the pillars of logic are true, and that my senses are true to the best of my knowledge."

Says who? See, this, again, is the problem with using "the best we can do" reasoning. Who is telling you that this is the best you can do, and what proof did they use to convince you of this? I have plenty of evidence that this is, in fact, a falsehood, and if "the best you can do" is not a full proof (as indeed seems to be implied here,) then it seems that people are well-justified in listening to people who *can* provide proofs of the things they say.

"It is out of necessity that I rely on logic and my senses because there is no other choice but to trust them."

There is most definitely another choice. I could do what my tinfoil-hat-wearing friend does, and believe every weird notion that comes into my head, and given how hopeless and lost the world is, I think that alternative is more attractive, quite frankly. Why *shouldn't* I imagine that every fat girl I meet is delighted and appreciative of her wonderful beauty? Unless someone can show that my imagination is "less real" than the information of logic and my senses are, there is no reason.

Now, look at all this nonsense we're going over. None of this has anything to do with evolution or even science. It's all first-year skeptical philosophy student rejection of reason and reality. I think, respectfully, that we should confine our discussion to the things that are realistic and rational.

P.S.: I always compose my replies in notepad, then paste them into the reply box and edit them there. That's how I do long replies.

P.P.S.: As to your complaints that I didn't provide evidence, that makes sense, since as I said in my last reply, I'm not the one advancing a proposition. Evolutionists are.


----------



## Never2fat4me (Jan 21, 2018)

Here in FL, the discussion about evolution in HS biology is something your child can opt out of, so nothing really surprises me...

But I digress. Responding to OP, I wonder if obesity is not so much the future as the past. Up until about the past 75 years or so in the West (and this still is very much the case in a great part of the world), a lower metabolism and fat storage was a feature of survival. Who needs a fast metabolism if food is scarce? As food calories have become abundant, and food waste is a bigger issue in the U.S. than food scarcity, the need to pass along genes that fatten humans is less relevant. This will be a slow process - evolution takes thousands of years - but it seems more likely that we would evolve to be thinner than to adapt to being fatter. But as a species, I suppose it is a great problem to be had - possibly unique in history - to not be driven by the need for nutrition.

- Chris


----------

