/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17650865]

Has anyone ever written an objection/refutation of Darwin's theory of evolution that you thought was in any way compelling?
Don't care if it's philosophical, theological, scientific or historical in its analysis, as long as it's a good read and is even mildly cogent.

[Anonymous No.17650947]

Henri Bergson's Creative Evolution, anon.

[Anonymous No.17651202]

"The hummingbird kissing the hibiscus blossom and the one gnawed on by worms in the grey dust are both equally far from hidden beauty; they are the painter's motifs, not his goal. We sense in his painting the golden explosions of the worm."

"In addition to male and female flowers, nature also knows hermaphrodite flowers, and all these forms are united and separated in the tree world in many ways. Botanists therefore distinguish a number of sexual variants from hermaphroditism to polygamy.

This is worth mentioning as an indication that gender belongs to the secondary determinations and not to the basic characters, as is confirmed not only by graphology and astrology but also by genetics. The tree as such has a deeper foundation; it bears sexes, but no gender."

It is a matter of classification. What is really happening in Darwinian evolution is an order of completion. The animal is perfecting its relation to nature, but also freeing itself from it as a type. Of course, this all happens from the perspective of the human and his own theology of nature which sees at once disdain for it but also a struggle to elevate and free. Here the animal is lifted up from the brutality of nature and given a place freed of elemental violence.

It is very clearly liberal theology applied to the natural order. It contains all of the elements of Goethe's theory of nature, but not of its wealth. It views nature from another perspective and sees only its technical components.

What happens if we shift the classification system? We no longer look at the technical components (although we might see even more from this perspective, as in wildlife shows which begin to classify from technical components themselves, and yet the infinite frames of hummingbird wings seem strangely human) but towards the essence.

Aristotle's classification is based on movement and action. Here the horse may not seem all.that different from the dog, as many hunters could also attest to. And one sees a wholly separate character of the groundbird and the eagle. But this is also clear with the nuthatch or chickadee. The ground bird has an almost anonymous character, and does not fly so much as retreats back into the underworld.

Such a classification is of another perspective entirely, and one cannot say that it is entirely lost. We all still associate the eagle and lion with freedom and strength, which speaks to this higher order.

In Goethe, the Proteus, the morphological force of the ocean which unites us all. And as Jünger says, the elemental force of the world tree outlives even the gods. In death we are closer to the forest than other humans.

Perhaps Homer's vision of heroic violence is closer to a correct classification of the animals. All is the brutality of the tree falling away from the mountain.

This is what evolutionary theories miss, the simple and hidden beauty of living in naturw, the great character in even the smallest beings. Romanticism and the 'ecological surrealists'

[Anonymous No.17651235]

>>17651202
were something of an overreaction to the technical relation towards nature. The truth remains in the early myths of primitive people, the barbarians, and Greek myths of gods and their relation to the gods of the forest. There everything is based on the elements and the morphological force. Zeus who becomes the highest king only through a complete metamorphosis with nature.
This suggests the correctness of Goethe's thinking.

[Anonymous No.17651453]

>>17650865
It's tautology. Survival of the fittest = Survival of those who survive.

[Anonymous No.17651613]

>>17650865
Mind and Cosmos - Nagel
What Darwin Got Wrong - Fodor
Where the Conflict Lies - Plantinga
Twilight of the Idols - Nietzsche
Marx to Engels, 18 June 1862 - Marx

[Anonymous No.17651643]

>>17650865
Stephen Meyer convinced the comp-sci professor of Yale David Gelernter who was a hardcore Darwin fanboy that darwin's model of evolution is bunk.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE
Michael Behe (Biochemist) is someone else to check out.

[Anonymous No.17651701]

>>17651613
Not OP but how many of these books can I understand as someone who's entire philosophical readings are like, 4 Plato dialogues?

[Anonymous No.17651825]

>>17651701
The Marx letter is pretty straightforward. As is Fodor's book. The others might give you trouble though (in Nietzsche's case can be mitigated by secondary literature).

[Anonymous No.17652843]

>>17650865
Not possible.

[Anonymous No.17653763]

Bumpp

[Anonymous No.17653773]

>>17650947
How is that a refutation

[Anonymous No.17653819]

>>17650865
wdym? evolution theory doesn’t even use Darwin anymore.

[Anonymous No.17654099]

Perhaps 4chan isn't yet lost if a fair amount of users are now interested in denying evolution simply because of how much fun that could potentially be

[Anonymous No.17654160]

I could write one but I'm too lazy. I plan to go to /sci/ someday and open an exhaustive refutation.

[Anonymous No.17654191]

>>17651701
from the Marx letter:
>I'm amused that Darwin, at whom I've been taking another look, should say that he also applies the ‘Malthusian’ theory to plants and animals, as though in Mr Malthus’s case the whole thing didn’t lie in its not being applied to plants and animals, but only — with its geometric progression — to humans as against plants and animals. It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, ‘inventions’ and Malthusian ‘struggle for existence’. It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes and is reminiscent of Hegel’s Phenomenology, in which civil society figures as an ‘intellectual animal kingdom’, whereas, in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society.

[Anonymous No.17654847]

>>17650865
look into Michael Behe, anon

[Anonymous No.17655074]

>>17651453
Fittest for Darwin meant most adaptive.

[Anonymous No.17655124]

>>17651202
A lot of blah blah when you should be talking about Lamarckism

[Anonymous No.17655164]

>>17650865
If you've studied it it's about as hard to refute as gravity. The only debate is over the details and special cases. As we speak new variants of covid-19 are evolving, natural selection is happening in real time. It has been demonstrated in laboratory settings. Because the reproductive turnover of bacteria and virus is massively accelerated, they display evolution on fast forward. In the course of seven hours a single bacterium can two million descendants. Each one of those descendants will also generate two million in seven hours. Now toss something into the petri dish so that most of them die off. Some might survive because of a genetic mutation, and then they will repeat the process reproducing the new phenotype which is adapted to whatever it was that killed their predecessors.

What is happening in this petri dish is what has happened over entire surface of the earth for the past 3.5 billion years, only with slower reproductive turnover rates.

[Anonymous No.17655291]

>>17650865
>Has anyone ever written an objection/refutation of Darwin's theory of evolution
Unironically all of modern science refutes darwinisme.

[Anonymous No.17655310]

>>17654191
>evolution is nature viewed through capitalism
what

[Anonymous No.17655335]

>>17655164
Humanities people treat science as if it were another humanities subject, they think an emotionally charged essay counts as refutation of scientific evidence. Just look at this nonsense >>17654191
it doesn't engage with the evidence at all. The fact that that anon thinks someone's opinion on 160 year old research is relevant to current science shows they have no grasp of what science is.

[Anonymous No.17655956]

>>17651202
Interesting. Are there any books like this?

[Anonymous No.17656034]

>>17650865
He was retroactively refuted by Lamarck, whose vindication biology moves ever further towards.

[Anonymous No.17656063]

>>17655310
The Soviets went full retard with this idea with Lysenkoism.

[Anonymous No.17656075]

>>17654099
Well as long as they do not use to justify religion it's cool.

[Anonymous No.17656320]

>>17650865
Given that science is not (ideally, by definition) a static list of unmovable truths or commandments, but rather a rigorous and peer reviewed cataloguing of the best possible observations of a given matter, all of science since Darwin has refuted as much of his theory as is necessary to be refuted through the information collected through testing and observation over time until now.

Many modern branches of evolution pertaining to it's more immediately observable effects, have a lot of repeatable and predictive models behind them now, so there are definitely areas of the discipline that will not ever be refuted.

Fields of evolution pertaining to the origin of life are still up in the air, though I don't doubt their credibility.

This is something that more religious minded people really struggle to grasp, because they are used to systems of belief and conviction. Science is not a field of belief or conviction when applied in it's pure sense. It is never the contention of a scientist that they have the 'objective truth' at hand, but that they have made and catalogued the best possible analysis of the truth they can perform with the physical and intellectual tools they have available. That and nothing more or less.

To demand that someone blindly believe something they have stated true is the business of organized, politicized religious groups.

[Anonymous No.17656335]

>>17650865
Here's Fodor's argument against natural selection. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.17656344]

>>17656335
I don't understand it

[Anonymous No.17656352]

>>17656335
P2 is wrong.

[Anonymous No.17656354]

>>17656335
This might need more context. It makes absolutely no sense on its own.

[Anonymous No.17656380]

>>17656335
Perhaps an example needs to be used in place of A and B, I'm really failing to see how this lines up with an understanding of natural selection to then refute it. It reads a lot like he has gone forth to refute his own understanding of natural selection which is wrong, somewhat confused, and has resulted in some retarded word spaghetti.

I could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.17656414]

>>17651613
>Plantinga
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.17656419]

>>17656335
>>17656352
>>17656354
>>17656380
>it's being A
The grammar is flawed. I'm tempted to treat this just as a troll.

[Anonymous No.17656483]

>>17655310
based illiterate

[Anonymous No.17656522]

>>17651643
How do they explain mass extinction events? Do they really think man walked alongside dinosaurs?

[Anonymous No.17656568]

>>17650865
OP, the best logical argument against Darwinism that I have seen appears in the first eighty pages of Hilaire Belloc's "A Companion to Mr. Wells's Outline of History." Belloc does not deny that evolution occurs; he only rejects the mechanistic principal of Natural Selection. The only reason anybody every fell for such nonsense was a desperation to avoid having to rely on divine intelligence or occult forces to explain the inexplicable.

[Anonymous No.17656664]

The mechanism of Darwinian evolution is not hard to comprehend and is largely salient.

What I have trouble understand is the leap from molecules to replicators. Once that process is established, then it all makes sense.

[Anonymous No.17656711]

>>17656664
Random chance?

[Anonymous No.17656768]

>>17656335
>1. Selection has a cause
>2. Causes aren't sensitive to counterfactuals. If I didn't have longer claws, then the fact that if I had longer claws I would have survived doesn't explain why I survived.
>3. But whether or not a trait actually contributed to survival depends on counterfactual statements.
>4. So if two genes coexist there is no way to determine which one contributed to survival.
>5. Checkmate Darwinists.
Could someone help me on why he thinks the distinction between contributing and free-rider traits hinges on counterfactuals? Was trying to work it out but couldn't.
>t. not a philosophy guy

[Anonymous No.17656812]

>>17656768
I'm not a philosophy guy either, but I think, if I'm understanding the statements correctly, that the error here is that Fodor's examining the issue as if genes are separated and completely distinct, neglecting to account for pleiotropy and genetic spandrels. Other than that, I'd need to see the points in context because they don't seem to make sense on their own.

[Anonymous No.17656815]

>>17655335
Hasn't it always been like this around here? A refutation is a snide remark delivered with rhetoric flourish, or something a horse-faced dude in a nightgown wrote.

[Anonymous No.17656863]

>>17656711

[Anonymous No.17656899]

>>17656768
A revision because I was misunderstanding some of it.
>1. Selection has a cause
>2. Causes aren't sensitive to counterfactuals. If I didn't have longer claws, then the fact that if I had longer claws I would have survived doesn't explain why I survived.
>3. But whether or not a trait actually contributed to survival depends on counterfactual statements.
>4. So if two traits are caused by one gene there is no way to determine which trait contributed to survival.
>5. Checkmate Darwinists.
With this change, I would say it doesn't matter which trait was selected for, because the gene was selected for. Still don't fully understand point three though.

[Anonymous No.17656906]

>>17656335
I think I have worked out what he means. The example in 2. goes like this:

It is not the case that A
It is the case that B
If it were the case that A, it would be the case that B

The conclusion is that there isn't a true causal relationship between A and B. In 3. he applies this to a trait that is selected for, and an associated trait that is passed on with the selected trait but is not selected for itself. I'm not sure how he applies this to the selected (T') and free-riding (T) traits in 4. but this is my best guess:

It is not the case that trait T is selected for
It is the case that trait T is passed on to the next generation
If T were selected for, it would be passed on to the next generation

So he concludes that there is no causal relation between selection and traits being passed on. The problem with this is that it is assuming an extremely narrow view of natural selection, that natural selection is the single possible cause of traits being passed on. This is not a view held by any biologists today, evolution is the observable outcome and natural selection is one if the main mechanisms by which it occurs, but mechanisms outside selection itself impact evolution, like chance. Evolution can even occur in instances with minimal selection, for example in a population with minimal selection pressure the frequency of a trait may increase by chance (genetic drift) and thus the population is evolving to have a higher frequency of that trait, but not by natural selection.

TL;DR - it attacks a position in which natural selection is the sole mechanism of evolution, but biologists don't hold that position (I think, I might have misunderstood without the full context)

[Anonymous No.17656974]

>>17650865
M. Mathis (who I don't generally recommend outside of is science work because he's a hopeless leftist) has highlighted some obvious glaring holes in the current model.
http://mileswmathis.com/evol.pdf

[Anonymous No.17656982]

>>17654191
This nigga was legit retarded

[Anonymous No.17657012]

>>17655335
He is taking issue with the wording Darwin used, and rightly so. It colored Darwin's interpretation of the process. Marx was a Darwinian though.
>shows they have no grasp of what science is.
No, you just made a category error.

[Anonymous No.17657034]

Scott Turner, Purpose and Desire
Rupert Sheldrake, The New Science of Life

>>17653773
Not him but Bergson does explicitly reject the sufficiency of Darwinism to explain evolution in the book

[Anonymous No.17657062]

>>17657034
Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past is good and has chapters on natural selection (chapter 8).

Also read The Case of the Midwife Toad, it's really good. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.17657518]

>>17655124
>consoom data
>retroactively refute
>ideology royale
>BTFO
Fucking zoomers ruined this place

[Anonymous No.17657915]

>>17656568
I second this and Belloc in general

[Anonymous No.17657941]

>>17656568
>>17657915
Can you explain to me why natural selection is nonsense?
I sort of see it in the sense that the whole accidental mutations that carry over if they are beneficial thing never made sense to me at all, but if you stretch our that type of thing over a time scale that might as well be infinite otherwise nonsensical processes appear reasonable

[Anonymous No.17657953]

>>17654191
Lmao what the fuck was Marx's problem

[Anonymous No.17657955]

>>17654191
Communists are so tiresome

[Anonymous No.17657969]

>>17654191
damn he blew Darwin the fuck out honestly

[Anonymous No.17657987]

>>17655335
>Humanities people treat science as if it were another humanities subject

According to one of the leading philosophers of science evolution isn't a science because it's a hypothesis that can't be falsified.

[Anonymous No.17658035]

>>17657941
“Nonsense” is a strong word. But in short, biologists use the term “differential reproductive success” instead of natural selection these days. The short version is that how adapted you are matters so far less than how many kids you pump out that it’s almost nonsensical to compare them. Apex predators are going extinct at a far greater rate than the herbivores they prey on, for a concrete example.

[Anonymous No.17658065]

>>17658035
Not the anon you replied to, but interesting.
Does that mean that natural selection as presented by Darwin was just a part of the whole picture and/or its importance on the survival of a given species was overblown?

[Anonymous No.17658082]

>>17657987
Popper is not popular at all if that's who you mean.

[Anonymous No.17658100]

>>17650865
this is realy good. Have never seen good argument ageist his examples.
There is a good essay in the book Sword of gnosis, if you want more philosophical look.

[Anonymous No.17658103]

>>17655164
Yeah, this is sort of the problem these threads have, as what OP is asking is
>provide me with thinkers who say that genes don't real
and you can get plenty of thinkers who though that. They were wrong, and they're in the dustbin of history for that.

There's plenty of criticism of Darwin's original theories. That isn't to say he was wrong, because after all how the fuck could he have predicted something like Horizontal Gene Transfer or Epigenetics, but rather that it's just the first step from which other thinkers base their work off of.

>>17657987
Evolution can be falsified; no one cares what Popper thought. You're making the classic misunderstanding of confusing buzzfeed "science reports" with scientists.

[Anonymous No.17658121]

>>17658100

[Anonymous No.17658202]

>>17650865
here is semi scientific philosophical and theological critique

[Anonymous No.17658249]

>>17650865
Kent Hovind. Check his youtube videos out, nobody has defeated him yet. If so show me proof.

[Anonymous No.17658261]

>>17658121

[Anonymous No.17658332]

>>17657969
He didn't address a single point and instead gave a smug af ad hominim.

[Anonymous No.17658444]

>>17651643

[Anonymous No.17658490]

>>17658261
Evolution is anti-Semitic

[Anonymous No.17658494]

>>17658249
>a youtuber

[Anonymous No.17658656]

>>17656335
>If it wasn't the case that A, then the fact that it's being A would have caused its being B doesn't explain its being the case that B
Why do philosophers write like fucking retards? Nietzsche seemed to use "Hitherto" every fucking sentence as well why can't they talk fucking normally?

[Anonymous No.17658657]

>>17658494
Easier to understand for retards like you.

[Anonymous No.17659739]

>>17657941
Belloc makes several arguments, but the most compelling is the one which occurred to me in biology class before I ever read him. Natural Selection fails to account for the rise of intermediate stages of complex traits. For example, insect wings. Supposedly they first arose as randomly generated nubs which gradually turn into beautiful, functional wings. But how does the process start? It takes a leap of faith to believe Natural Selection would really select those nubs by herself. Something else is driving the process.

[Anonymous No.17659765]

>>17659739
>But how does the process start?
A mutation, duh. Cellular division and replication are error prone. It's why there's so many error-correcting mechanisms found in nature: it's easier to just slap a bandaid on.

[Anonymous No.17659812]

>>17659765
Yes, yes, I understand that a mutation occurs, but what makes it stick? The mutation is supposed to help the organism outcompete its non-mutated brethren, but how do the wing-nubs do this? On the contrary, those nubs would only be a hindrance. You can only get to usable wings by evolution if something forward-looking is driving the process.

[Anonymous No.17659968]

>>17657941
Another thing I wanted to mention is the time in which this process takes place. Ancient philosophers held the stars to be eternal, but modern science rejected this notion, positing that they burned out after a relatively short period of time. It was only after it was realized that Darwin's process needed, as you said, a virtually infinite period in which to occur, that they changed their story to present narrative of stars lasting billions of years. Modern science makes assumptions, and then forces everything to fit the assumptions, while persecuting anyone who questions them.
For my part, I will say that I think evolution happens much faster than they say it does. The earth goes through cycles, and the changes occur during the brief phases between ages. A careful reading of mythology suggests that the present age has gone on perhaps ten thousand years. Maybe more, but certainly not for millions of years. Prior to that, the texts tell of earth-altering catastrophes. Read Plato's Timaeus, or the various legends of the Deluge. Virgil's Eclogues speak of a coming change that will shake the world down to its axis. Life on earth was different before the present age, and it will be different after it.
If you knew the signs, you would know that the present time is coming to an end. That is why the weather and the people all seem given over to madness. That is why the Left badgers us about Climate Change. Their masters know it is coming, but nothing is the way they say it is. We may live to see changes take place much faster than "science" ever imagined. Nonetheless, I remain optimistic.

https://youtu.be/n3C93ZWCmvM

[Anonymous No.17660053]

>>17658035
Interesting, didn't know this

>>17659739
>>17659968
Thanks, good stuff
I also had the thought that these intermediate stages, where something is useless but becomes useful later on, don't make much sense
Do you think there were previous civilization cycles? I believe so
Might read what you recommended that type of thing interests me

[Anonymous No.17660070]

>>17659968
I am so tired of all the millions of faggots on this website that take pride in their anti-intellectualism and their lack of education.
>but that's not an argument!
Yes I am tired of arguing with people who take pride in their anti-intellectualism. All that's left to do is insult them for giggles.

[Anonymous No.17660080]

>>17660070
Not him but "intellectualism" is just really boring at this point, not to mention gay

[Anonymous No.17660144]

>>17660053
Yes, there most certainly were civilizations in the ages before us. We are at the end of a long spiral of decline. If you would like one more book suggestion, the best one I have read on the subject is Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World. Also very important is Spengler's Decline of the West. I came to many of Evola's conclusions somewhat independently myself, but reading Spengler (whom Evola also read) changed my life.

[Anonymous No.17660165]

>>17659968
Fucking /x/

[Anonymous No.17660211]

>>17660165
This might have been one of Belloc's clever chapter headings:
"/x/ as a Stick with which to Beat the Traditionalist"

[Anonymous No.17660334]

>>17654099

[Anonymous No.17660359]

>>17660070
None of your intellectual theories will save you in the coming axial shift and cyclical reset. The magnetic pole is already drifting at an accelerated rate. The Hindu prediction of the end of Kali Yuga was 2030. It wouldn't surprise me if that is when the Earth's magnetic field finally decides to entirely falter and the great reset occurs.

[Anonymous No.17660392]

>>17659812
>but what makes it stick
If the organisms with them manage to do a better job at passing their genes. Some mutations get lucky and piggyback off the success off unrelated genes in the same organism.
>but how do the wing-nubs do this
All they really need to do is survive. They don't have to out-compete everyone else. Wing nubs might also provide extra tactile information, giving them a slight edge. Or maybe they didn't suck enough to get them wiped out and mutations eventually branched off over millions of years.

[Anonymous No.17660511]

>>17660359
The Prophecies of Paracelsus actually suggest 2023. Either way, nothing can stop what is coming.

>>17660392
In the end, whether that satisfies you depends on you. As for me, there is much more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.

[Anonymous No.17660529]

>>17660511
So what exactly is Heaven supposed to be? Is God just gonna back up your consciousness and pop it into a happiness simulator until he forgets to pay the bill or heat death consumes even him?

[Anonymous No.17660687]

>>17660529
I can't really go into that without turning this into a big theology debate. The truth is perhaps inadvertently expressed in the Catholic formula: Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Seek out what has always then believed, the perennial and universal truths, then you will know.

[Anonymous No.17660736]

>>17660687
If the Catholics had a solid equation for truth, then why the hell aren't they the ones pumping out technology? Is the Vatican holding out on us?

[Anonymous No.17660748]

>>17654191
The more I read on Marx the more he sounds like a vegan. A possessed individual that is incapable of looking at a subject without dragging his obsession into it.

[Anonymous No.17660769]

>>17660736
They have the equation, but they plug in false values. I was a Thomist for a decade, before I realized this. Also, it should be said that this is not about technology. It is about the spirit. This habit of measuring things by material achievements, be it tech or wealth, is why we're so deeply convinced of our superiority. It is a lie.

[Anonymous No.17660808]

>>17660769
So they're in it for the memetics, rather than any practical real-world use? No wonder they're slowly dying out.

[Anonymous No.17660814]

>>17655335
uhh sciencebros??

[Anonymous No.17660823]

>>17656568
Well darwin's theory doesn't try to explain what deternines the mutations that will occur, so his theory was never about intelligent design or randomness.

[Anonymous No.17660849]

>>17660814
Very true. Your beliefs are set by your mid 20s and won't change much over your life. It's like the saying everyone is a liberal in their youth and a conservative in their old age. It's not that their beliefs change but rather the beliefs of society do and leave them behind. The conservatives of yesterday are dead.

[Anonymous No.17660870]

>>17660823
This on par with intelligent falling as a challenger to gravity. Sure angels could be causing specific mutations instead of chance just like angels could be dragging falling objects to the ground instead of gravity.

[Anonymous No.17660892]

>>17659739
These nubs by themselves might have a benefitial effect. Feathers for example greatly aid in the survival of birds due to protection, BUT they are also aid in flying.

[Anonymous No.17660895]

>>17660808
For the real Catholic, the truth is the authentic expression of the teachings handed down by the Apostles. They are dying out because their leadership has been totally undermined, and those teachings are in the process of disappearing. For the Traditionalist (not to be confused with the TradCath) the source of truth is something much older, and we decline as we get farther away from it. We tend to believe that that cycle is nearing its end.

[Anonymous No.17660931]

>>17660870
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.17660939]

>>17659765
yes, the first mutation duh, and then you have to expect that another accidental mutation might arise on the genes of those who survived with initially absolutely useless residual limbs. Let's say that the probability of having the first mutation is 0.0001, the conditionate probability of obtaining the second mutation is 0.00001^2, which is 1e^(-8), the third one is 1e^(-12), and then after many many mutations you have a perfect wing with the probability of 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 to happen. And then you go to your onions university and yell "uhhh brooo this is perfectly coherent, something almost impossible to happen happens all the time because of Dawkins, randomness and the flying spaghetti monster!!"

[Anonymous No.17660959]

>>17660895
So what exactly are they using this source of truth for? What's it telling them about the universe? Is it like a holy 8-ball or do they have a hotline to some divine call center? Is it some ancient document that they try to derive all of reality from? If it's so old, how proficient are they at pulling truth from this source? What's their track record of accuracy on this truth? Science is pretty clear in the methodology, but how are faith-based "truth" systems supposed to function?

[Anonymous No.17660983]

>>17660939
There's a bit more to the probability than that. For example, environmental pressures will make certain traits more prolific than others, tipping the probabilities. We're also talking about trillions upon trillions of iterations taking place over billions of years, so even tiny probabilities tend to become inevitable.

[Anonymous No.17661033]

>>17660959
"Science" only examines one aspect of reality. If that aspect is all you want, it's all your going to get; but life will never really make sense. Higher truths can be found in the surviving documentation we have of ancient mythology and religion from around the world. As I suggested to another anon here, a guide to the method of reading them can be found in Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World.

[Anonymous No.17661060]

>>17661033
>"Science" only examines one aspect of reality
Science examines reality itself. The entire aspect.
>Higher truths
Literally everything I've seen written/posted about higher truths is some memetic bullshit that plays upon the power of suggestion and tricking one's own perception.

[Anonymous No.17661107]

>>17661060
As a materialist, you really only have one element: Earth. We Traditionalists have four: Fire, Air, Earth and Water (in the Hermetic conception); and then one more, which is the Great Mystery or Quintessence. And beyond. If you don't seek for yourself it will just sound like nonsense, and that's OK. No one is going to try to force you. Good luck!

[Anonymous No.17661134]

>>17661107
>Earth
Solid
>Water
Liquid
>Air
Gas
>Fire
Plasma

Simple as. Besides we have an entire periodic table of elements. And quarks, leptons, and bosons. Don't forget antimatter. We can even shoot that stuff at your brain to scan it for cancer.

[Anonymous No.17661158]

>>17661060
>Science examines reality itself. The entire aspect.
why do people still believe this?

[Anonymous No.17661165]

>>17661158
They've never opened a dictionary and looked up the word "induction"

[Anonymous No.17661168]

>>17661134
Touché. All of the four elements are present to you, but your perspective is the earthly one. Strive for more.

[Anonymous No.17661196]

>>17661168
>but your perspective is the earthly one
It's a big universe out there. You ever hear about pulsars (neutron stars)? They are essentially giant atomic nuclei of mostly neutrons the size of a large city spinning insanely fast. The only thing preventing them from completely collapsing into a black hole under their own gravity is the neutron degeneracy pressure. They are helpful for detecting gravitational waves since they can function like clocks spread across our galaxy we can use for experimenting.

[Anonymous No.17661941]

>>17660687
>Seek out what has always then believed, the perennial and universal truths, then you will know.
Any books for this?

[Anonymous No.17661969]

>>17660849
>Your beliefs are set by your mid 20s and won't change much over your life.
The biggest shift in my philosophical and religious beliefs happened in my mid-20s, after I seriously started reading.
True for political beliefs though

[Anonymous No.17662277]

>>17659739
>Natural Selection fails to account for the rise of intermediate stages of complex traits
This is a typical argument that confuses a current trait as some kind of goal that a species would have to work towards for millions of years. A current trait is a modification of a previous trait that was also useful. In the case of insect wings, a popular theory is that protrusions from the exoskeleton acted to increase the air resistance of a falling insect. Larger protrusions had a fitness advantage in that they allowed insects to glide and travel distances through the air to reach food or avoid predators for example. Flexibility and musculature would allow greater control of the protrusions and greater maneuverability, giving a further fitness advantage. At each stage there was a fitness advantage. Every stage, including the current one, is "intrrmediate" in a sense because there are always stages before and after.

[Anonymous No.17662278]

>>17661941
There are multiple paths, but on mine some of the best books were the fragments of Heraclitus and Empedocles, Plato's Timaeus, Iamblichus' On the Mysteries, the Corpus Hermeticum, the Latin Asclepius, Ficino's Three Books on Life, numerous writings of Paracelsus and every alchemical text I could find, illuminated by Evola's The Hermetic Tradition.

[Anonymous No.17662314]

>>17661107
What the frickin hell! Stop larping like its Alexandria 100 bc.

[Anonymous No.17662376]

>>17660144
You have not read spengler.

[Anonymous No.17663328]

some major retards in here lol.

[Anonymous No.17663338]

>>17662376
Not him, but Spengler rejected evolution, you'd know that if you read Decline.

[Anonymous No.17663379]

>>17651453
more like recursion unto itself

[Anonymous No.17663406]

And this is supposed to be tge "high iq" board

[Anonymous No.17663407]

>>17651453
That's a catchy phrase, not a scientific explanation of natural selection. 0/10 must try harder.

[Anonymous No.17663489]

>>17654099
kek

[Anonymous No.17663578]

>>17660939
The earth is 4.54 billion years old dude. If you're getting hung up on "shit builds up over time", then I'm sorry but you're just a midwit. We don't live in a Thomistic billiard-ball universe where everything happens for some intelligible reason. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.17663583]

>>17661941
How to Kill a Dragon.
Archaic Roman Religion.
Indo-European Poetry and Myth.
East Face of the Helicon (read this after Indo-European Poetry and Myth)
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language.

[Anonymous No.17663638]

>>17663578
>The earth is 4.54 billion years old dude
Those are rookie numbers.
You've no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.17663684]

>>17663638
Then how old is the earth, in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.17663860]

Evolution isn't even a hard concept to grasp. Why do christfags struggle so much to understand it?

[Anonymous No.17663863]

>>17663578
>We don't live in a Thomistic billiard-ball universe where everything happens for some intelligible reason.
[citation needed]
[refutation of Aquinas needed]

[Anonymous No.17663869]

>>17651453
Survival (of genes) of those who survive (animals)

Not a tautology, you're just a moron

[Anonymous No.17663881]

>>17663869
>Survival (of genes) of those who survive (animals)
Survival of genes of those genes which survive.
This is the proper Dawkins model related to genes.

[Anonymous No.17663902]

>>17656664
All one needs to do is read about Conway's Game of Life. A very simple ruleset can produce insanely complex results:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8

[Anonymous No.17663916]

>>17659739
Intermediate stages can be useful, anon.

[Anonymous No.17663928]

>>17663881
Shut up retard

[Anonymous No.17663997]

>>17663928
Nice argument.

[Anonymous No.17664114]

>>17663997
Try not blatantly misrepresenting core arguments and we might have something to argue about

[Anonymous No.17664207]

>>17655335>>17660849
>>17660814

if you had done 10 minutes of philosophy, you would know that an empirical evidence is an oxymoron which voids any dream of science discussing actual reality.

[Anonymous No.17664224]

>>17656320
>but that they have made and catalogued the best possible analysis of the truth they can perform with the physical and intellectual tools they have available. That and nothing more or less.
No, there is nothing about ''the best observations'' in science. That's made up by you. and tehre is not ''analysis of the truth'' either. Anything scientists produce is entirely statistical and there is nothing but social conventions in the treatment of those statistics of the given initial set of data points.

[Anonymous No.17664320]

>>17655164
>>17658103
Yeah but to treat this idea as a breakthrough is moronic.
Evolution is just the claim: if some animal exists right now, it's because the environment didn't kill it quickly enough thanks to the animal and its critters responding well [thru some of their features] to whatever the environment throws at them. Woah.

[Anonymous No.17664396]

>>17663902
Biogenesis is another great game that follows real evolutionary principals. Traits are inherited, random mutations occur, less successful offspring die off, etc.

http://biogenesis.sourceforge.net/

[Anonymous No.17664416]

>>17664320
>Yeah but [entirely different point]
Why feel the need to make a post like this?

[Anonymous No.17664460]

>>17663338
Cool, I'll skip him then.

[Anonymous No.17664472]

>>17660895
>>For the real Catholic, the truth is the authentic expression of the teachings handed down by the Apostles.
Ok so something not canon, and made up texts very late in the chronology.

[Anonymous No.17664481]

>>17661060
>Science examines reality itself. The entire aspect.
No, and you cant even prove this.

[Anonymous No.17665005]

>>17663684
It's 4.54 billion years old, the thing is that actually isn't that much time when you actually crunch the numbers on how many mutations are possible at any given time.

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/

[Anonymous No.17665235]

>>17664114
He is right, try to think a bit more about what he said now, you rushing idiot.