[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 10 KB, 216x216, 106736.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13540409 No.13540409[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What are some books that prove the largely unscientific and metaphysically unsound theory of evolution? Everything I've read that's put forward by evolutionists is closer to an ideology than actual science.

>For if a natural development were to lead up to a reflexive intelligence, to a sudden act of awareness that perceived the development for what it was, that outcome would be a reality falling entirely outside the realm of the evolutionary process; there would thus be no common measure between the act of awareness and the quite contingent movement that preceded it, and this movement, therefore, under no circumstances, could be the cause of the awareness in question.

>This argument is the very negation of the theory of transformist evolution, and therefore of all such notions as those of man as a "link" or man as a product of chance; by the same token it also excludes any mystique of a generative matter, of a biosphere or noosphere or of a "point omega."' Man is what he is, or he is nothing; the capacity for objectivity and absoluteness inherent in thought proves the quasi-absolute or fixed and irreplaceable character of the thinking creature; this is what is meant by the Scriptural words "made in God's image."

>> No.13540410

>>13540409
Nick Land, Fanged Noumena, malicious compliance

>> No.13540414

>>13540409
There are none, evolution is a myth...

>> No.13540422

You are too dumb for STEM so don't worry about it. Just believe whatever you're told to

>> No.13540424

Guenon

>> No.13540435

>>13540422
>muh evolution indoctrination told me I'm a good lab rat that understands yes massa told me I'm good boy
>Just believe whatever you're told to
STEMlards and self-reflection, ironic.

>> No.13540444

>>13540435
seething

>> No.13540449

>>13540409
Its true

>> No.13540451

>>13540422
STEM has nothing to do with thread. Projecting is sad desu senpai!

>> No.13540454

>>13540451
have sex

>> No.13540458

Evolution is a fact you goddamn retards.

What the hell happened to this board? Are there actual creationists and IDiots on this board?

>> No.13540465

>>13540458
When people can't get laid they start believing weird shit as a cope

>> No.13540484

>>13540458
The lesser can't generate the greater. Vedanata metaphysics btfo's evolutionism.

>> No.13540488

>>13540484
Thats the most pseud shit I've read all day

>> No.13540493

>>13540488
Not an argument. Try again

>> No.13540496

>>13540458
It's a project of humanity's flawed and fertile imagination

>> No.13540501

>>13540409
How is it unscientific and metaphysically unsound? It's disprovable and gives support for it's arguments. Also we can observe it in our lifetimes and beyond our lifetimes though the fossil record.
/lit/ needs to stop thinking science is something that they're beyond when they simply don't understand it. Remember that science is just a branch of philosophy after all.

>> No.13540522

Read the fossil record and learn about DNA you fucking sperg. If that's too difficult then go back to /pol/.

>> No.13540529

>>13540488
>The Vedic and tantric aspect of the Pythagorean ideas of sound and harmony, lateralize into the visual when the alphabet gains permanent stand alone symbols for vowels. This happened *only once* in history in one place at one time as far as we know. It was when Plato was a young man that the extracted vowel-manifest east ionic alphabet was adopted by Athens and sent forth on imperial decree to the satellite regions of Athens.
>This begins a conversion of *sound into vision* but purely through symbolic abstraction.
Do you really think evolution stands up to this

>> No.13540534

>>13540522
What constitutes a species is a metaphysical category. Studying nothing but the quantitiative will not benefit your viewpoint on the subject since you are basing it all on their metaphysicla category of the species (that is in truth, something of an inverted metaphysical system)

>> No.13540572
File: 16 KB, 220x287, 220px-Kant_gemaelde_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13540572

I thought we were done with these nonsensical dogmatic metaphysics.

>> No.13540578

Kill all metaphysicians

>> No.13540592

>>13540409
I admire your skepticism, but you must look deeper and distrust even your own beliefs.

>> No.13540692

>>13540410
How?

>> No.13540703

>>13540534
he said nothing about species. the information in dna changes over time and this is what we call evolution.

>> No.13540706

>>13540534
A species is any group that can interbreed and produce viable offspring. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

>> No.13540707

Evolution is biological Whigism.

>> No.13540718

At least scientists have finally managed to create a thread that decreases your IQ just by reading it!

>> No.13540730

I'm not a creationist but this whole evolution thing seems highly doubtful to me
Just gotta wait for them to update the science
Hope someone comes around who's assertive and strong enough to push through the dogma

>> No.13540731

>>13540692
Its obvious man

>> No.13540732

>>13540707
This.

>> No.13540750

Let me hear one good argument against evolution.

>muh god!
>it's just a theory!

>> No.13540752

>>13540730
The big scientific swindle (that mathematicians will admit if you pin them down) is that the model comes before the data.

>> No.13540762

>>13540706
you're the one who don't have it right actually. the viability of offsprings is a spectrum. hinnies and mules technically can create offsprings, just more rarely than horse and donkey.

species is a metaphysical claim.

>> No.13540768

>>13540578
What about metaphysicists?

>> No.13540769

>>13540752
it's not a big swindle or whatever. it's part of scientific method. hypothesis is literally formulating a model, then you get data to validate or reject it.

>> No.13540775

>>13540731
If it's obvious, then it should be easy to explain to a brainlet as myself.

>> No.13540776

>>13540769
they only use the data which validates and throw away what goes against the model
only human

>> No.13540778

>>13540762
There have literally been fewer than a dozen cases of this happening. That doesn't blow out the entire definition

>> No.13540793
File: 82 KB, 1205x721, 1561509082459.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13540793

Remember when the world of science, a mere 200 years ago, was 100% absolutely fucking convinced the space beyond our atmosphere was occupied by a substance called aether?
And that while just trying to nail down some small details to finish up the fine print they came to realize that in fact it didn't exist at all?

lol

>> No.13540794

>>13540762
The concept of a species is not a static category. That's the whole point. There are fuzzy boundaries and each species is a moving target as part of a continuous evolutionary lineage.

>> No.13540809

>>13540793
>it's still a substance, bro
>dark matter is a substance that isn't a substance so we were right all along

>> No.13540834

>>13540793
>What is a false equivalence

>> No.13540840

>>13540529
Nope, you got us. We've been perpetuating evolution for decades to get easy funding. Truth is Darwin was some esoteric thinking pseud nobody who we resurrected in the early 20th century.

-t. evolutionary biologist

>> No.13540846

>>13540484
>The lesser can't generate the greater
where do you see lesser or greater? how are we "better" than the mosquitoes? dumblet

>> No.13540860

>>13540776
no brainlet, the negative results are published.

>> No.13540874

>>13540794
agreed. you should recognize that the circling of these fuzzy boundaries are inherently metaphysical claims.

>> No.13540887

>>13540484
Does that mean atoms can't generate humans? Or that ants can't form colonies?

>> No.13540888

>>13540874
No, they are not. You're just tossing the word "metaphysical around" without any argument.

>> No.13540897

>>13540409
>metaphysically unsound
What? Do you know what that word even means?

>> No.13540906

>>13540897
>words
>meaning
not gonna make it

>> No.13540912

>>13540778
It's not just mules and hinnies. i picked a very extreme example to make my point. here's a more fuzzy example: the cultivated grapes are hybrids of 4-5 different species repeatedly crossed each-others over many generations.

>> No.13540924

>>13540409
It's unfortunately degenerated into a political battle by this time, and both sides - creationists and evolutionists - are simply fighting for their religion. Very rarely will you find someone who isn't on one or the other side, and is simply forming his beliefs according to the data before him, ignoring the politics alongside them.

In my case, I believe there is initial creationism, as the fossil record shows (i.e Cambrian Explosion), and from there exists a process of genetic mutation filtered by natural selection. Where do the initial creatures come from, then?

Firstly, one must accept the premise that the plane of existence which humans live on is not the only one in existence - that higher-dimensions exist, and corresponding lifeforms on said plane. These include some of the lifeforms encountered on DMT, like Machine Elves. The creation of biological species, then, can theoretically be performed by any one or more species which are of a higher-dimension than we are, and not thenselves biological, such that they could design biological lifeforms and place them in this plane of density.

Secondly, you must accept the premise that we ourselves are not merely biological, having a higher segment of our being which lives on after our biology ceases to, this being the "soul" or "astral body" which the most credible of NDE's document the account of. If you accept this premise, then you necessarily agree that Darwinian development cannot explain the whole of our nature, since it only applies to biology, and does not account for something beyond that. What this then means, is that there are aspects of us which have evolved through selection over time, and others which have always been a part of our "souls", representing their eternal nature. I'll use Love to be an example of such a non-evolved, eternal dimension of our behaviors.

Thirdly, despite there being one or more designers of physical lifeforms, it also seems apt to posit the existence of a One, which is the singularity which everything ultimately is, with every single entity of the universe co-existing in a state of one-ness with the highest principle of reality itself. Pantheism, essentially. Thus, it is not merely the case that a

Lastly, people presume that whatever makes physical species must also have created the cosmos - not so. The Universe could have always been here, alongside the immortal lifeforms dwelling within it's higher realms, with the latter having created all known species but not having brought the former into being. It's also possible that they did indeed create the physical/3rd-dimensional plane.

The point is, there is a much more nuanced discussion to be had regarding the subjects of creationism, ID, and evolution - but the ones speaking of these subjects at present are strictly engaged in irrational, tribal warfare whereby the only two options an intellectual can pick between are that of Genesis or Abiogenesis.

And yes, I browse /x/. Get over it.

>> No.13540938

>>13540924
Regardless of whether you"re serious or not, this makes for pretty solid bait.

>> No.13540939

>>13540888
huh? i made an argument, but maybe that wasn't clear for you. species is fuzzy category as you pointed out. taxonomists are aware of philosophical issues with species. they are constantly debating and redefining species as a concept because it is not a *real* thing. it's a metaphysical claim that a certain group of organisms are this or that by some definition. maybe try reading some wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept

>> No.13540943

>>13540750
Gradualism.
It's a smoke screen that equates time to magic using absurd levels of linear extrapolation and has been used to plug empirical holes in a wide array of scientific fields: evolutionary biology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, astrophysics, etc.
Try it yourself. You can come up with all sorts of "theories" have verisimilitude by using long frames of unobservable time. You can even make big bullshit predictions about the future as well using the same method.

Entropy is another.
Primarily proposed in the Boltzmann Brain thought experiment. You're statistically more likely to be a sentient disembodied mind simulating this relation than a pile of flesh housing a brain housing a mind made entirely out of stochastic chance. Why? It's far more efficient for the Universe to create a conscious mind than it is to create a body for a conscious mind; based on how matter organizes itself in pockets within the Universe.
A more modern example would be Simulation Theory and that it's more likely you're a consciousness living in a nested simulation, complete with some bullshit backstory. Like if I were to go play WoW, it's not like the game lore actually unfolded out in the game. There's no causality, you're just in media res and the "history" is just for color.
Or God made us 5000 years ago or something and the backstory got filled when players started asking questions.

>> No.13540955

>>13540458
>IDiots
HAHAHAH THAT TERM IS USED ON RATIONALWIKI. Go back to fucking Reddit.

>> No.13540980

>>13540924
> These include some of the lifeforms encountered on DMT, like Machine Elves.
the ones that provided terence mckenna with actually usable real life data, not

>> No.13540984

>>13540943
>It's far more efficient for the Universe to create a conscious mind
Why would the universe create something and why would it be concerned with efficiency when doing so?

>> No.13540985

>>13540938
I am serious. I don't claim to be correct, just presenting alternative possibilities for discussions like the one being had here. If you don't believe in my premises though, then it's understandable you will consider those paragraphs a delusional ramble.

>> No.13540994

>>13540939
What you're describing is simply the issue with empirical categorization in general, it needn't any metaphysical basis to exist. You could make the broader argument that any attempt at categorization raises metaphysical questions, but this is not unique to the concept of species.

>> No.13541011

>>13540994
yes, and what's your point? species is a still metaphysical claim as a subset as you explained.

>> No.13541015

>>13540980
I use them as my example because their name is the most commonly known. I myself haven't taken the compound. And I do agree that it would be really nice if the entities encountered could provide us with some kind of information which helps us confirm their independent existence from us, and hope that will happen in the future someday. My post operates on the premise that at least some of those DMT species are independently real, and argues that if so, it's possible one or more of them could be the designers of the lifeforms here.

>> No.13541021
File: 466 KB, 657x345, Screen Shot 2019-07-27 at 8.16.22 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13541021

>>13540572
There would be no Kant without Luther and the swabian pietists, just like Plato would be no Plato without Socrates. Likewise, Charles Darwin's theories are secularised liberal anglicanism, expanding on Palley's and Herschel's protestant natural theology. Hence, we must reject Darwinism for a catholic natural theology grounded on the scientific teachings of Aristotle, the divine Plato, neo-platonic metaphysics and the summa of Dr. Aquinas. Aren't you aware that Teilhard de Chardin and Athanasius Kircher, Societas Iesu, definitely debunked and 'mythbusted' the erroneous heresy of Darwinism a long time ago?

>> No.13541024

>>13540985
I should have been more explicit (but it's hard to resist making snappy answer on 4chan).
What makes your post such good bait is that it start with an appeal to reasonableness, then it mentions the Cambrian explosion that is a widely discussed question in scientific circles. and barely two sentences later mentions DMT Machine Elves without any kind of forewarning. That's like sodomizing the reader's expectations without lube. And I commend you for that.

As for the discussion of alternatives, I'm generally favorable to them, even if they seem unlikely. I tend to be less charitable the more gratuitous they seem to me, and of course without shared background most alternatives seem gratuitous.

>> No.13541029

>>13541021
>catholic
I thought that Teilhard's claims were viewed as heretical.

>> No.13541030

>>13541021
>Hence, we must reject Darwinism for a catholic natural theology
LOL. The Catholic Church accepts evolution now.

>> No.13541040

>>13540458
>fact
Isolated data means nothing. OP is attacking the ideology behind and supporting this list of "facts".

>> No.13541043

>>13541024
I see what you mean. That's my nature really, I unintendingly tend to surprise people with how unexpectedly I veer into areas considered bizarre and esoteric. That said, I see no harm in presenting the concepts I did, given how puerile the domain in question has become by this point, and the lack of progress being made on it. I'm just trying to remind people that Abiogenesis and Genesis are not the only options one should be considering, is all.

>> No.13541051

>>13541030
It accepts a lot of things it shouldn't.

>> No.13541053
File: 21 KB, 512x288, 876.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13541053

>>13541015
>My post operates on the premise that at least some of those DMT species are independently real

>> No.13541057

It's just a theory...A SCIENTIFIC THEORY! Thanks for posting.

>> No.13541062

>>13541053
Provide me an argument which proves it impossible. I've seen former, dogmatic scientific materialists take the compound and come out believing them to be autonomous lifeforms, rather than an internal hallucination.

>> No.13541064

>>13541043
Yes, you are right on that, we are way too accepting of usual alternatives, and we often reduce intellectual investigation to deciding between those as if by virtue of being discussed they were the only ones possible.

>> No.13541065
File: 120 KB, 298x298, 1564198963282.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13541065

>>13541051
I'm glad the based Catholic Church has accepted evolution. Biblical literalism and fundamentalism is driving people away from Christianity because of things like creationism. And I'm saying this as a Catholic.

>> No.13541089

>>13541065
If you don't believe in creation you aren't Catholic, you're an aesthetic larper.

>> No.13541098

>>13541089
if you're going to larp as a biblical literalist, then u better have never worn any synthetic clothing or you're joining the homosexuals in the hell.

>> No.13541108

>>13540984
The anthropic principle.
It did create something and here we are. Since that's true, why did it do it in the most inefficient way possible according to current theories?
If the process truly followed the laws of the Universe, we'd be simulations rather than overengineered bodies. If we are in fact truly the latter, then the former has a near 100% statistical possibility of existing as well somewhere in the Universe.
So something's wrong with the calculus here. Either we fucked up about our ontology or our epistemology is wrong regarding our origin.

Personally, I think that the Theory of Evolution will be superseded in-time by a quasi-metaphysical / materialist Theory of Simulation.
Meanwhile the traditional metaphysicists will be sitting pretty claiming that they knew this all along. The neo-materialists will probably disregard the metaphysicists out of spite & disbelief of nuance, trying to reform materialism to incorporate this "illusory" nature of reality into their philosophy (not bothering to delve what revelatory process they used to gain that knowledge in the first place). This will probably initiate around the time when people start spending more time in digitized virtual worlds rather than the material world. You'll start seeing people shift their language and analogizing stuff like the internet the "astral plane" and even modern terms like 'avatar' are metaphysical in origin. It's only a matter of time before this clicks.

>> No.13541114

>>13540776
Only in psychology

>> No.13541140

>>13541089
Plenty of Popes have accepted evolution. Are they just aesthetic larpers?

>> No.13541150

>>13541108
>If the process truly followed the laws of the Universe, we'd be simulations rather than overengineered bodies.
It's not true and you're assuming creating of men as a purpose. The anthropic principle in its wealest form only means our universe must be compatible with humanlike observers, not that it should have "engineered" us as some kind of entity of special importance. You're confusing causality with teleology.

Btw I don't know if you've read Bostrom's simulation paper, but it does not claim we are in a simulation, only that, provided some conditions are met, we should expect to be more likely to be in a simulation than the opposite. But those conditions are very hard to meet (the first is creating a lifelike simulation of our own univere, just compare that with how shitty our best VR is).

>> No.13541156

>>13541140
You didn't respond to my point exactly. Words matter.
>>13541098
I'm not and neither is Schuon or the OP.

>> No.13541157

>>13541140
>popes
>not aesthetic larpers
add in homosexual kiddie diddlers as well

>> No.13541203

>>13541062
>Provide me an argument which proves it impossible
I... I can't... oh my god... I can't do it

>> No.13541225

>>13540912
What species would those be? Other grapes?

>> No.13541234

>>13541203
It's not even a wild claim. Unless you think human sensory organs show us the whole range of reality, then there's nothing remotely impossible about it.

>> No.13541262

>>13540409
Evolution disproves itself with the concept of "survival of the fittest", the fittest will always be an elite few, so if only the fittest survive how can an entire species of plebeians evolve at the same time? Darwinism is a causal ordering of facts, just like materialist history, they deny inner will and originality saying "x happened so y was the result" rather than a metaphysical unfolding of the potentiality of the will of a collective consciousness through time

Humans must have evolved to modern man because our ancestors willed it to be so, the hand must have evolved as an expression of a will to make and use tools, intelligence from a will to control nature

Evolution can't result from nature shaping the animal, the animal must will itself to live in nature

>> No.13541274

>>13541262
Darwin never said the phrase "survival of the fittest", he said that the most adaptable lifeforms are the ones that survive and pass on their genes. Survival of the fittest was invented by robber barons to justify shitting on the poor during the 19th century

>> No.13541298

>>13540458
>What the hell happened to this board

/pol/

>> No.13541322

>>13541150
My argument was that if a mind like ours can exist in this universe, then a Boltzmann Brain must exist in this universe as well. It's statistical phenomenology. Implicitly, perhaps we are most likely the Boltzmann Brains. My extrapolation lead into the case for Simulation Theory.

I have read into Bostrom paper, and am familiar with the various scenarios and conditions. Failing to produce a nested simulation doesn't nullify the hypothesis, just makes it less probable. However it is well documented that we do produce nested simulations quite commonly, though they are often disregarded. These VR simulations are incredibly vivid and lifelike, featuring independent agents, it's own physics, experiences, the works. Shit I'm fooled by them all the time. They're what we call "dreams".

But we probably have to write that off because of the materialist fetish for electromechanical rather than biomechanical validity (much easier to reductionally prove an operating system than a mind). Though I hold it as valid proof of high-fidelity simulation.

>> No.13541354

Kill yourself. Evolution is farmost backed by similarities in the genetic code between every living organism on earth. The more primal the protein it encodes, eg: DNA / RNA Polymerase, the more conserved the sequence is. You can literally extract some proteins from one organism and use them for the same function in an other species if their immune system allows it or you suppress it. The hox genes are found in all mammals at different copy numbers and encode limb formation in all species it is found it. Embryos between animals look so similar that we even have a tail as a foetus. We share most housekeeping genes with fucking yeast. You're so biased that you call evolution metaphysical then seek answers in the bible. Are you pretending to be retarded or are you schizo or what?

>> No.13541381

>>13541354
what could this be except proof of divine providence and proof of correspondance between man and the world and between the world and the divinity? How can you not see this as an overwhelming revelation of divine immanence. There is nothing more frightening than knowing God exists and he loves you, and that you are a being which partakes in the nature of God through mind and through sentiment? are you even alive? do you feel alive? can you shout into the cosmic void and listen to the echoes, and decode the message encoded for you by the Creator le bon dieu lui meme?

>> No.13541386

>>13540409
Just checking, do you have an explanation for the massive accomplishments of the field of genetics or is this purely a philosophical criticism?

>> No.13541394

>>13540484
This. Libtards have evolution backwards.

>> No.13541407

>>13541354
>bro life uses the same building blocks
no shit, so does non-life.