Consciousness

[Subsymbolic]

Is your point in binary? Because there are ten sorts of people and you are neither of them.

 

[untermensche]

The point is for people to address very simple questions.

No binary anything.

Is it possible to write out all the fractions between zero and one?

Is it possible to merely imagine they all exist?

Simple questions.

And the answer can be as complex as the respondent thinks necessary.

But an answer is an appropriate response. Not pretending to have one.

 

[fromderinside]

What's more simple than a coin flip, a switch, a choice? An audience of maybe one want's to know.

 

[untermensche]

Huh?

I have to wonder why simple questions are avoided with such vigor.

 

[fromderinside]

A simple question of for one to ask for a binary answer.

Let me predict. You aren't one who has to answer anything because you pose the self evident.

 

[DBT]

Why do keep saying ''completed?' What completion? Nothing stays the same, nothing remains complete and unchanging. What we see is a process of change. Matter/energy taking many patterns and forms, some persisting for long periods of time, stars, galaxies, etc, others appearing and disappearing quickly, virtual particles, collisions, cloud formations and so on....probably the only constant being change itself. The universe itself may be a manifestation of a larger process, a process that had no beginning and is therefore eternal. The other option is something out of nothing, perhaps a quantum fluctuation...but that itself is something.

I have expressed a simple way to look at a completed real infinity.

Writing out all the fractions between zero and one would be a completed real infinity.

Having infinite time end, finish, be done, as all the time in the past ends at every present moment, would be a competed real infinity.

Neither are possible.

I made no mention of Cantor's infinity sets. Are you responding to some other poster by mistake?

 

[humbleman]

I see, because macular degeneration has "degeneration" in it you think it is some kind of genetic degeneration.

It is not a description of genetic degeneration. It is an age related degeneration of cells.

There is no such thing as genetic degeneration.

I'm afraid that you are strongly refusing to get the point.

Let me try to expand better how genes degenerate and are passed that way to offspring.

In nature, currently, a worldwide genetic degeneration is in progress at that point that is noticeable.

The link declares that this "evolutionary event" can't be understood in the past but now... Lol.

When you know that there is no evolution but the rule in living species is degeneration, you should understand what is going on since centuries ago.

Lets go to the link.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716201127.htm

Scientists have long suspected that the sex chromosome that only males carry is deteriorating and could disappear entirely within a few million years, but until now, no one has understood the evolutionary processes that control this chromosome's demise. Now, a pair of Penn State scientists has discovered that this sex chromosome, the Y chromosome, has evolved at a much more rapid pace than its partner chromosome, the X chromosome, which both males and females carry.


This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance. The research team, which includes Associate Professor of Biology Kateryna Makova, the team's leader, and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow Melissa Wilson, will publish its results in the 17 July 2009 issue of the journal PLoS Genetics....

...Once the biologists determined that the Y chromosome has been evolving more rapidly and has been losing more genes as a result, they wanted to find out why the Y chromosome has not already disappeared entirely. "Today, the human Y chromosome contains less than 200 genes, while the human X chromosome contains around 1,100 genes," said Wilson. "We know that a few of the genes on the Y chromosome are important, such as the ones involved in the formation of sperm, but we also know that most of the genes were not important for survival because they were lost, which led to the very different numbers of genes we observe between the once-identical X and Y. Although there is evidence that the Y chromosome is still degrading, some of the surviving genes on the Y chromosome may be essential, which can be inferred because these genes have been maintained for so long..."

What a wonderful crap... for example, "but we also know that most of the genes were not important for survival because they were lost...' Ha ha ha ha... what a bunch of deluded guys... "rapid evolution of chromosome Y" ...ha ha ha ha... those guys are hilarious...

Anything but accepting that at the end of the day DEGENERATION rules.

Take away the silly theory of theirs and check the facts alone: facts show degeneration.

Apply the process of degeneration in the whole picture, that these scientists accept degeneration as the rule over living species.

These same scientists will only say: It was obvious, species are trapped in a degeneration process since their appearance on earth.

And there is no "reversal", no "evolution", no "hope": the trend is degeneration.

Learn it, live it, love it.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I see, because macular degeneration has "degeneration" in it you think it is some kind of genetic degeneration.

It is not a description of genetic degeneration. It is an age related degeneration of cells.

There is no such thing as genetic degeneration.

I'm afraid that you are strongly refusing to get the point.

Let me try to expand better how genes degenerate and are passed that way to offspring.

In nature, currently, a worldwide genetic degeneration is in progress at that point that is noticeable.

The link declares that this "evolutionary event" can't be understood in the past but now... Lol.

When you know that there is no evolution but the rule in living species is degeneration, you should understand what is going on since centuries ago.

Lets go to the link.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716201127.htm

Scientists have long suspected that the sex chromosome that only males carry is deteriorating and could disappear entirely within a few million years, but until now, no one has understood the evolutionary processes that control this chromosome's demise. Now, a pair of Penn State scientists has discovered that this sex chromosome, the Y chromosome, has evolved at a much more rapid pace than its partner chromosome, the X chromosome, which both males and females carry.


This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance. The research team, which includes Associate Professor of Biology Kateryna Makova, the team's leader, and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow Melissa Wilson, will publish its results in the 17 July 2009 issue of the journal PLoS Genetics....

...Once the biologists determined that the Y chromosome has been evolving more rapidly and has been losing more genes as a result, they wanted to find out why the Y chromosome has not already disappeared entirely. "Today, the human Y chromosome contains less than 200 genes, while the human X chromosome contains around 1,100 genes," said Wilson. "We know that a few of the genes on the Y chromosome are important, such as the ones involved in the formation of sperm, but we also know that most of the genes were not important for survival because they were lost, which led to the very different numbers of genes we observe between the once-identical X and Y. Although there is evidence that the Y chromosome is still degrading, some of the surviving genes on the Y chromosome may be essential, which can be inferred because these genes have been maintained for so long..."

What a wonderful crap... for example, "but we also know that most of the genes were not important for survival because they were lost...' Ha ha ha ha... what a bunch of deluded guys... "rapid evolution of chromosome Y" ...ha ha ha ha... those guys are hilarious...

Anything but accepting that at the end of the day DEGENERATION rules.

Take away the silly theory of theirs and check the facts alone: facts show degeneration.

Apply the process of degeneration in the whole picture, that these scientists accept degeneration as the rule over living species.

These same scientists will only say: It was obvious, species are trapped in a degeneration process since their appearance on earth.

And there is no "reversal", no "evolution", no "hope": the trend is degeneration.

Learn it, live it, love it.

Actually, the very idea of something deteriorating, or indeed improving, only makes sense relative to some standard. Otherwise there is merely change. As the very heart of evolution is the notion not of of improvement or deterioration but fitness to a given environment. Evolution simply doesn't have a direction.

Even if this wasn't the case, there's something faintly ridiculous about accepting those parts of a paper that you hope support your position while literally laughing off those that don't. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to be consistent and, where you are not, you need to argue for the differential treatment.

Oh and a diagnostic question: What is a gene and how does one identify a gene?

 

[Hermit]

I'm afraid that you are strongly refusing to get the point.

Let me try to expand better how genes degenerate and are passed that way to offspring.

In nature, currently, a worldwide genetic degeneration is in progress at that point that is noticeable.

The link declares that this "evolutionary event" can't be understood in the past but now... Lol.

When you know that there is no evolution but the rule in living species is degeneration, you should understand what is going on since centuries ago.

Lets go to the link.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716201127.htm



What a wonderful crap... for example, "but we also know that most of the genes were not important for survival because they were lost...' Ha ha ha ha... what a bunch of deluded guys... "rapid evolution of chromosome Y" ...ha ha ha ha... those guys are hilarious...

Anything but accepting that at the end of the day DEGENERATION rules.

Take away the silly theory of theirs and check the facts alone: facts show degeneration.

Apply the process of degeneration in the whole picture, that these scientists accept degeneration as the rule over living species.

These same scientists will only say: It was obvious, species are trapped in a degeneration process since their appearance on earth.

And there is no "reversal", no "evolution", no "hope": the trend is degeneration.

Learn it, live it, love it.

Actually, the very idea of something deteriorating, or indeed improving, only makes sense relative to some standard. Otherwise there is merely change. As the very heart of evolution is the notion not of of improvement or deterioration but fitness to a given environment. Evolution simply doesn't have a direction.

Even if this wasn't the case, there's something faintly ridiculous about accepting those parts of a paper that you hope support your position while literally laughing off those that don't. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to be consistent and, where you are not, you need to argue for the differential treatment.

Oh and a diagnostic question: What is a gene and how does one identify a gene?

You might want to read the relevant article in PLOS before you continue. The study does not look like bullshit to me. Its authors, Melissa A. Wilson and Kateryna D. Makova, both staff members of the department of biology at the Pennsylvania State University, say in the introduction that "The already gene-poor mammalian Y continues to deteriorate, and it has been proposed that within a few million years the human Y will lose all of its genes, with major consequences for mankind." They then continue to argue how and why that is very probably the case.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I'm afraid that you are strongly refusing to get the point.

Let me try to expand better how genes degenerate and are passed that way to offspring.

In nature, currently, a worldwide genetic degeneration is in progress at that point that is noticeable.

The link declares that this "evolutionary event" can't be understood in the past but now... Lol.

When you know that there is no evolution but the rule in living species is degeneration, you should understand what is going on since centuries ago.

Lets go to the link.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716201127.htm



What a wonderful crap... for example, "but we also know that most of the genes were not important for survival because they were lost...' Ha ha ha ha... what a bunch of deluded guys... "rapid evolution of chromosome Y" ...ha ha ha ha... those guys are hilarious...

Anything but accepting that at the end of the day DEGENERATION rules.

Take away the silly theory of theirs and check the facts alone: facts show degeneration.

Apply the process of degeneration in the whole picture, that these scientists accept degeneration as the rule over living species.

These same scientists will only say: It was obvious, species are trapped in a degeneration process since their appearance on earth.

And there is no "reversal", no "evolution", no "hope": the trend is degeneration.

Learn it, live it, love it.

Actually, the very idea of something deteriorating, or indeed improving, only makes sense relative to some standard. Otherwise there is merely change. As the very heart of evolution is the notion not of of improvement or deterioration but fitness to a given environment. Evolution simply doesn't have a direction.

Even if this wasn't the case, there's something faintly ridiculous about accepting those parts of a paper that you hope support your position while literally laughing off those that don't. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to be consistent and, where you are not, you need to argue for the differential treatment.

Oh and a diagnostic question: What is a gene and how does one identify a gene?

You might want to read the relevant article in PLOS before you continue. The study does not look like bullshit to me. Its authors, Melissa A. Wilson and Kateryna D. Makova, both staff members of the department of biology at the Pennsylvania State University, say in the introduction that "The already gene-poor mammalian Y continues to deteriorate, and it has been proposed that within a few million years the human Y will lose all of its genes, with major consequences for mankind." They then continue to argue how and why that is very probably the case.

IN this case, no, I don't need to. I just need to ask against which standard anything can be claimed to deteriorate. The notion of deterioration only makes sense relative to the intentions of a designer. Sure the chromosome is changing, but that's all you can say, because evolution doesn't have intentions. I don't give a toss where they work or even whether the study is bullshit or not, infact if you say that, apart from this egregious error it's good then I believe you. However, it's language like this that can never be correct and only gives the ignorant leverage. Face it, like accidental teleology in neurobiology, accidental appeals to a designer is an all too common error in evolutionary biology. If we are talking about something that is important to us from a societal or personal perspective then we can talk about deterioration relative to our hopes and fears, but something like this that might affect us in a few million years? I don't think so; it's just sensationalising something that is irrelevant to any human concerns. The phrase 'gene poor' is the same mistake, making a value judgement where none can legitimately be made.

You can call it unfortunate language, but as humbleman demonstrates, this unfortunate language will be jumped on with glee by those who really think that there is a designer and everything happens relative to Him.

 

[Hermit]

You might want to read the relevant article in PLOS before you continue. The study does not look like bullshit to me. Its authors, Melissa A. Wilson and Kateryna D. Makova, both staff members of the department of biology at the Pennsylvania State University, say in the introduction that "The already gene-poor mammalian Y continues to deteriorate, and it has been proposed that within a few million years the human Y will lose all of its genes, with major consequences for mankind." They then continue to argue how and why that is very probably the case.

IN this case, no, I don't need to. I just need to ask against which standard anything can be claimed to deteriorate. The notion of deterioration only makes sense relative to the intentions of a designer. Sure the chromosome is changing, but that's all you can say, because evolution doesn't have intentions. I don't give a toss where they work or even whether the study is bullshit or not, infact if you say that, apart from this egregious error it's good then I believe you. However, it's language like this that can never be correct and only gives the ignorant leverage. Face it, like accidental teleology in neurobiology, accidental appeals to a designer is an all too common error in evolutionary biology. If we are talking about something that is important to us from a societal or personal perspective then we can talk about deterioration relative to our hopes and fears, but something like this that might affect us in a few million years? I don't think so; it's just sensationalising something that is irrelevant to any human concerns. The phrase 'gene poor' is the same mistake, making a value judgement where none can legitimately be made.

You can call it unfortunate language, but as humbleman demonstrates, this unfortunate language will be jumped on with glee by those who really think that there is a designer and everything happens relative to Him.

Never mind the designer. If, as the authors mention, the already gene-poor mammalian Y continues to deteriorate to the point where it will lose all of its genes, that would spell the end of procreation of mammals. In terms of evolution this will constitute, to put it mildly, a definite deterioration. No?

 

[beero1000]

Never mind the designer. If, as the authors mention, the already gene-poor mammalian Y continues to deteriorate to the point where it will lose all of its genes, that would spell the end of procreation of mammals. In terms of evolution this will constitute, to put it mildly, a definite deterioration. No?

He's saying that calling that a deterioration contains an implicit judgement that the idea that mammals stop procreating is bad. If you're, say, an endangered whale shark, you might think that the end of mammal procreation is a huge improvement.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You might want to read the relevant article in PLOS before you continue. The study does not look like bullshit to me. Its authors, Melissa A. Wilson and Kateryna D. Makova, both staff members of the department of biology at the Pennsylvania State University, say in the introduction that "The already gene-poor mammalian Y continues to deteriorate, and it has been proposed that within a few million years the human Y will lose all of its genes, with major consequences for mankind." They then continue to argue how and why that is very probably the case.

IN this case, no, I don't need to. I just need to ask against which standard anything can be claimed to deteriorate. The notion of deterioration only makes sense relative to the intentions of a designer. Sure the chromosome is changing, but that's all you can say, because evolution doesn't have intentions. I don't give a toss where they work or even whether the study is bullshit or not, infact if you say that, apart from this egregious error it's good then I believe you. However, it's language like this that can never be correct and only gives the ignorant leverage. Face it, like accidental teleology in neurobiology, accidental appeals to a designer is an all too common error in evolutionary biology. If we are talking about something that is important to us from a societal or personal perspective then we can talk about deterioration relative to our hopes and fears, but something like this that might affect us in a few million years? I don't think so; it's just sensationalising something that is irrelevant to any human concerns. The phrase 'gene poor' is the same mistake, making a value judgement where none can legitimately be made.

You can call it unfortunate language, but as humbleman demonstrates, this unfortunate language will be jumped on with glee by those who really think that there is a designer and everything happens relative to Him.

Never mind the designer. If, as the authors mention, the already gene-poor mammalian Y continues to deteriorate to the point where it will lose all of its genes, that would spell the end of procreation of mammals. In terms of evolution this will constitute, to put it mildly, a definite deterioration. No?

There are two separate issues - one that the idea that the current situation is negative or indeed that the number of genes is indeed less than it should be. There's just nowhere to stand to make that judgement, they should know better.


As for anything going extinct in the unimaginably distant future, I rather think that selective pressures might well develop that will eliminate that as a process just as soon as it begins to reduce fitness. That a pair of actual biologists at an actual university are worried that genotypic evolutionary pressures, or good old drift, will not get eliminated by phenotypic evolutionary pressures just as soon as the genotypic changes start affecting phenotypic fitness speaks volumes about the current quality of American academia.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Never mind the designer. If, as the authors mention, the already gene-poor mammalian Y continues to deteriorate to the point where it will lose all of its genes, that would spell the end of procreation of mammals. In terms of evolution this will constitute, to put it mildly, a definite deterioration. No?

He's saying that calling that a deterioration contains an implicit judgement that the idea that mammals stop procreating is bad. If you're, say, an endangered whale shark, you might think that the end of mammal procreation is a huge improvement.

I'm not quite saying that. I am certainly humanocentric and I'd rather not cede the ground to sharks in the future. However this relativity is at the heart of my objection. My point was that worrying about what happens in the distant future when you have a dynamic system like evolution that has a history of responding to selective pressures like not being able to breed... So I'm objecting to the lack of relativity while putting my faith in the Lord selective features of evolution which rather undermine any sense of this being anything other than what is happening.

 

[George S]

Just a thought. It will take a million years or so for the Y to "deteriorate." We may find a solution before then.

 

[Copernicus]

You might want to read the relevant article in PLOS before you continue. The study does not look like bullshit to me. Its authors, Melissa A. Wilson and Kateryna D. Makova, both staff members of the department of biology at the Pennsylvania State University, say in the introduction that "The already gene-poor mammalian Y continues to deteriorate, and it has been proposed that within a few million years the human Y will lose all of its genes, with major consequences for mankind." They then continue to argue how and why that is very probably the case.

IN this case, no, I don't need to. I just need to ask against which standard anything can be claimed to deteriorate. The notion of deterioration only makes sense relative to the intentions of a designer. Sure the chromosome is changing, but that's all you can say, because evolution doesn't have intentions. I don't give a toss where they work or even whether the study is bullshit or not, infact if you say that, apart from this egregious error it's good then I believe you. However, it's language like this that can never be correct and only gives the ignorant leverage. Face it, like accidental teleology in neurobiology, accidental appeals to a designer is an all too common error in evolutionary biology. If we are talking about something that is important to us from a societal or personal perspective then we can talk about deterioration relative to our hopes and fears, but something like this that might affect us in a few million years? I don't think so; it's just sensationalising something that is irrelevant to any human concerns. The phrase 'gene poor' is the same mistake, making a value judgement where none can legitimately be made.

But aren't you correct that the standard is from the perspective of our own species and the hope that it continue to repeat itself in perpetuity? The God delusion embodies that aspiration, because God, of course, dotes on his perfect imperfect creation. So the chromosome can deteriorate from our perspective in that it is essentially necessary to perpetuate our species. If you take the perspective of a universe indifferent to our continued existence then it makes no sense to speak of the "deteriorization" of a chromosome.

You can call it unfortunate language, but as humbleman demonstrates, this unfortunate language will be jumped on with glee by those who really think that there is a designer and everything happens relative to Him.

I don't think it is possible to say anything that cannot be quoted out of context and jumped on. The original article betrays no misunderstanding about the directionality of evolution, but that will not help readers who come to it with such a misunderstanding. The point is that the researchers were not ultimately trying to explain evolution to non-specialists. They were reporting the work out to other specialists, so I don't think we can fault them for their choice of words in this case. Perhaps the blame should be directed more at those who report the results to the general public, because they do have an obligation to be wary of ignorance and misunderstanding by their readership.

 

[Subsymbolic]

But aren't you correct that the standard is from the perspective of our own species and the hope that it continue to repeat itself in perpetuity? The God delusion embodies that aspiration, because God, of course, dotes on his perfect imperfect creation. So the chromosome can deteriorate from our perspective in that it is essentially necessary to perpetuate our species. If you take the perspective of a universe indifferent to our continued existence then it makes no sense to speak of the "deteriorization" of a chromosome.

You can call it unfortunate language, but as humbleman demonstrates, this unfortunate language will be jumped on with glee by those who really think that there is a designer and everything happens relative to Him.

I don't think it is possible to say anything that cannot be quoted out of context and jumped on. The original article betrays no misunderstanding about the directionality of evolution, but that will not help readers who come to it with such a misunderstanding. The point is that the researchers were not ultimately trying to explain evolution to non-specialists. They were reporting the work out to other specialists, so I don't think we can fault them for their choice of words in this case. Perhaps the blame should be directed more at those who report the results to the general public, because they do have an obligation to be wary of ignorance and misunderstanding by their readership.

I guess there were three issues:

1) It's just a bad habit to make boo/hooray judgements that imply teleology or design where there isn't any

2) While I accept that there could be a species preference, if this was actually reducing fitness already, rather than merely being a feature, there would already be selective pressure against it, because anything that reduces fitness, by definition has selective pressure against it (unless there's some balancing upside) that's just how evolution works. As such, even from a humanocentric perspective, there's not cause for a boo. More to the point, I'd expect an evolutionary biologist to recognise that a 'homeostatic' (geneostatic?) effect that will occur is something starts to reduce fitness in this way.

3) It seemed appropriate to drive a small truck over humbleman's less than subtle evangelising.

 

[Copernicus]

But aren't you correct that the standard is from the perspective of our own species and the hope that it continue to repeat itself in perpetuity? The God delusion embodies that aspiration, because God, of course, dotes on his perfect imperfect creation. So the chromosome can deteriorate from our perspective in that it is essentially necessary to perpetuate our species. If you take the perspective of a universe indifferent to our continued existence then it makes no sense to speak of the "deteriorization" of a chromosome.

You can call it unfortunate language, but as humbleman demonstrates, this unfortunate language will be jumped on with glee by those who really think that there is a designer and everything happens relative to Him.

I don't think it is possible to say anything that cannot be quoted out of context and jumped on. The original article betrays no misunderstanding about the directionality of evolution, but that will not help readers who come to it with such a misunderstanding. The point is that the researchers were not ultimately trying to explain evolution to non-specialists. They were reporting the work out to other specialists, so I don't think we can fault them for their choice of words in this case. Perhaps the blame should be directed more at those who report the results to the general public, because they do have an obligation to be wary of ignorance and misunderstanding by their readership.

I guess there were three issues:

1) It's just a bad habit to make boo/hooray judgements that imply teleology or design where there isn't any

I can agree that we should try to eliminate the popular misunderstanding about evolution that it is directional in anything but towards a standard of "fitness" for a given environment. However, my point was that specialists have no need to worry about that misunderstanding among peers. It is only one that needs to be addressed to general audiences.

2) While I accept that there could be a species preference, if this was actually reducing fitness already, rather than merely being a feature, there would already be selective pressure against it, because anything that reduces fitness, by definition has selective pressure against it (unless there's some balancing upside) that's just how evolution works. As such, even from a humanocentric perspective, there's not cause for a boo. More to the point, I'd expect an evolutionary biologist to recognise that a 'homeostatic' (geneostatic?) effect that will occur is something starts to reduce fitness in this way.

True, but that implies we are all on the same page regarding the inevitability of our own extinction. Our species is fit to thrive and prosper in a range of environments, and we do have some ability to artificially stabilize environments to suit our needs (e.g. by living in artificially regulated environments on Earth, in space, or on other planets). We can also artificially modify (i.e. "improve") our progeny to survive in more hostile environments that we encounter. Evolution is merciless and relentless, but part of our "fitness" is an ability to adapt more rapidly than other species to threats posed by the inevitability of environmental "degradation" from our perspective.

3) It seemed appropriate to drive a small truck over humbleman's less than subtle evangelising.

I make it a practice to look both ways before crossing the street. Not so sure about humbleman.

 

[fromderinside]

Just a thought. It will take a million years or so for the Y to "deteriorate." We may find a solution before then.

A strong testament to human free will. HNY George S

 

[humbleman]

IN this case, no, I don't need to. I just need to ask against which standard anything can be claimed to deteriorate. The notion of deterioration only makes sense relative to the intentions of a designer. Sure the chromosome is changing, but that's all you can say, because evolution doesn't have intentions. I don't give a toss where they work or even whether the study is bullshit or not, infact if you say that, apart from this egregious error it's good then I believe you. However, it's language like this that can never be correct and only gives the ignorant leverage. Face it, like accidental teleology in neurobiology, accidental appeals to a designer is an all too common error in evolutionary biology. If we are talking about something that is important to us from a societal or personal perspective then we can talk about deterioration relative to our hopes and fears, but something like this that might affect us in a few million years? I don't think so; it's just sensationalising something that is irrelevant to any human concerns. The phrase 'gene poor' is the same mistake, making a value judgement where none can legitimately be made.

You can call it unfortunate language, but as humbleman demonstrates, this unfortunate language will be jumped on with glee by those who really think that there is a designer and everything happens relative to Him.

In this topic the only one who has mentioned a "designer" has been you.

I, on the other side, even laughed of the conclusions made in the link, conclusions based on evolutionary ideas which don't fit with the current reality.

For once, forget "designers" in this issue.

(I started the propagation of DEGENERATION of species since year 2000, and if any religious group is copying it or have found the same process by themselves and uses it to favor their belief in a god or designer, well, I am aside from them. Before finding DEGENERATION I also found a different process which I called it The Recycling Process of Life on Earth. The name of the theory explains it by itself, species do not evolve but recycle. Not to be discussed here, because it's baby food, I prefer going to the big meal, the degeneration of species which is not theoretical but fact)

There is a degeneration process in progress.

It has always been a degeneration process throughout generations in the species.

Look at the root of the theory of evolution. It was called "evolution" because Kant and others thought that current species have come from inferior, worst and simpler species. Kant even wrote that we are descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees, to which he considered as inferior.

This is the idea that Darwin inherited and continued when he wrote his book the Origin of Species. He concluded that his invention "natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps. Darwin took mutations as favorable only.

This is what the theory of evolution has been about, and this is why still is keeping the word "evolution" in its title.

At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.

The current theory of evolution, keeps the word "evolution" as a technical term. As it is accepted, a technical term might mean something completely different to what the same word means in common language.

Evolutionists tried to push the idea that also in common language, the world "evolution" solely means "change", implying no arrow.

As you have said above, the theory of evolution doesn't imply any arrow in the changes, and this is because "evolution" on the theory is now a technical term applied in Biology only.

However, at the end of the day, there is an arrow. The changes in species finally show a specific arrow.

This arrow discards one more time the claims of the theory of evolution.

Degeneration is the arrow.

Degeneration is the evidence. Degeneration is the path.

Regardless of the propaganda and billions of dollars invested to make appear the theory of evolution as valid, a simple but harmful change in nature affecting the elements of the universe and the species on earth is prevailing: Decay-degeneration.

We must be conscious about this reality of species under degeneration, and we must stop following by inertia of belief the theory of evolution which from its very genesis until today have been proved false.