The theory of Evolution! (simple)

The basic idea behind the theory of evolution is that all the different species have evolved from simple life forms, these simple life forms first developed more than 3 billion years ago (the earth is 4.5 billion years old).

The fundamental theory behind evolution is that it happens because of Natural Selection (survival of the fittest). Natural Selection is basically when certain individuals in a species adapt to be suited to their environment, which means they are more likely to survive and reproduce (have children). These individuals in a species show a wide range of variation (differences), this variation is because of a difference in genes. These different genes are basically mutations, for example in Xmen (a popular film franchise) the mutants have different genes to humans and therefore have 'powers', these 'powers' make them stronger than normal humans. The genes that allow this certain group of individuals to survive are passed down to their offspring (children). The individuals that don't adapt to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce, meaning that the evolved individuals will become the dominant ones in that species.

(Note: If there is anything you would like me to add or change please do say so, and if you want more info on evolution I advise you to read Charles Darwin's, The Origin of Species or look up evolution online. Also some of this information is not mine as I did use a few websites as a reference. Finally if you're wondering why i decided to write about the theory of evolution it is because I did it today in class and it really interested me so I decided to share it with you guys! )

Either you don't understand evolution, Aaron, or you are not explaining it well. Individuals can "adapt to their environments", but they cannot do so genetically, because once they are born, their genetic makeup is fixed. So you, for example, can adapt to your environment by getting an education, working out in a gym, or improving your hand-eye coordination by playing video games. None of these adaptations, however, will alter your genetic makeup, nor will they be passed on to your children genetically.

Your genetic makeup is determined at birth. For one-celled animals that reproduce through cell division, genetic variation occurs only through mutations. Without mutations, the cells divide into genetic replicas of themselves. In the case of sexual reproduction, genetic variation exists with or without mutations. Although mutations occur, and are important to evolution, the genetic variation inherent in all sexual reproduction can lead some individuals to be more likely to reproduce, and others to be less likely. The individuals do not "adapt" genetically -- but the species does when more children are born with particular genes than with others.

Modern Evolutionary theory recognizes that the gene, not the individual, is the unit that is passed on unchanged from one generation to the next. Since you share (on average) 50% of your genes with your siblings, your siblings' reproductive success is also important in passing your genes to the next generation. A person who has no children, but whose siblings have 8 children is more "successful" in terms of spreading his genes than the one who has two children, but whose siblings have none (everything else being equal).

The important point, however, is that although individuals can adapt to their environment, such adaptations do not affect their genetic makeup. The notion that individuals can pass adaptations they make during their lifetime on to their children is associated with Lemarckism, a theory of evolution that competed with Darwinian evolution and has been abandoned. Also, Darwin was unaware of genetics (although, of course, he knew that animals could inherit traits from their parents) so his Theory has "evolved" dramatically since his time.

You know what I never understood about evolution? Okay so presumably birds that fly evolved from dinosaurs, and presumably the way evolution works is through the natural selection of advantageous traits through random mutation, but isn't flight sort of all or nothing? I mean what advantage did the dinosaurs with half a wing and too much bone density to take off have over their non winged counterparts.

This keeps bothering me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

You know what I never understood about evolution? Okay so presumably birds that fly evolved from dinosaurs, and presumably the way evolution works is through the natural selection of advantageous traits through random mutation, but isn't flight sort of all or nothing? I mean what advantage did the dinosaurs with half a wing and too much bone density to take off have over their non winged counterparts.

This keeps bothering me.

---

It will bother you no more... a Roadrunner gets along just fine, as a ground bird.

Some recent fossils found in China suggest these intermediary creatures (between reptiles and birds), were quite successful, and btw, survived for millions of years. And feathers provide great insulation when it's cold, and are easy to keep cool when it's hot.

Well no, it's the flight itself that does bother me. Did one day a dinosaur flap its wings which had been pointlessly evolving (along with everything else needed to fly) for millions and millions of years only to discover "hey I can fly"?

The problem you are referring to, Clopin, is called the problem of "irreducible complexity", and it's an issue evolutionary science has been dealing with for years. Flight is not generally the biggest problem: we all know that flying squirrels and flying snakes can glide -- and so over millions of years, it's possible to see how flight evolved. More problematic issues in "irreducible complexity" involve the development of the eye (and vision) and the development of sexual reproduction. I don't have time to look up anything about these issues (and I don't know any answers off the top of my head) -- but if you google "irreducible complexity" you will probably come up with some answers (or at least a discussion of the subject).

The answer to dinosaurs growing wings is supposedly that they started jumping and the ones with half wings (or one one thousandth of wings I guess) were more efficient at it until they learned to fly.

I know that reproduction is difficult to reconcile with evolution from single celled organisms because two different and complimentary reproductive systems had to evolve at the same time randomly and randomly work together to produce offspring, instead of just through cell mitosis. Generally when something (you mentioned sight) is an all or nothing, either it works or it doesn't, proposition, I find it hard to see the evolutionary explanation for how it came about, but obviously I'm no biologist.

Queen Victoria was a mutant, but sadly it did not give her superpowers. It just meant that some of her male descendants suffered from haemophilia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

The answer to dinosaurs growing wings is supposedly that they started jumping and the ones with half wings (or one one thousandth of wings I guess) were more efficient at it until they learned to fly.

I know that reproduction is difficult to reconcile with evolution from single celled organisms because two different and complimentary reproductive systems had to evolve at the same time randomly and randomly work together to produce offspring, instead of just through cell mitosis. Generally when something (you mentioned sight) is an all or nothing, either it works or it doesn't, proposition, I find it hard to see the evolutionary explanation for how it came about, but obviously I'm no biologist.

---

This is exactly what has always bothered me as well, Clopin. I've never received a really plausible answer other than random mutation. Which isn't really plausible either.

Ecurb: I just want to note, in case you missed it before, that Aaron is 14 years old. Given that, his early attempt at understanding evolution is quite admirable. :)

That being said, Aaron, Ecurb is a very knowledgable fellow, and you can learn a lot from his critique. Since he has covered all of what I would have cautioned you about in terms of biology, I will just make the stylistic suggestion that you remove the words "basically" and "basic" from your essay. These words are often (as here) unnecessary and make what would otherwise be keen and powerful sentences a bit flabby. Always question these words when you write (unless you are writing dialogue). They are seldom necessary and best avoided.

Clopin (and Easy): I'm no biologist, either, but I am not as troubled about the evolution of flight as you are. Clearly some transitional forms are missing, but that is to be expected in light of how rarely fossils form. It requires rather precise environmental conditions (usually involving the dead organism being almost immediately covered with some kind of geological matrix), that the fossil be spared destruction in the earth, and that it be found at all--a pretty rare combination when you think about it. Compare the few fossils that make it through that gauntlet to the total number of organisms that have died on the planet and you'll see my point. It's not unusual that many transitional forms would be missing (although we do have some). In fact, it would be expected.

Okay, but I get it that that is not what you were asking about. It seems to me (in my no doubt naive "science for Classics majors" sort of way) that natural selection could have turned the trick of flight quite handily. Critters scurry after lunch, and those with less dense bones are fast enough to catch it (and the others don't live long enough to reproduce as much). Their descendants keep on scurrying for lunch, and those who leap better catch it. Their descendants scurry after lunch and those with more fluffy scales leap even better, and catch it. Their descendants scurry after lunch, and those whose feathery scaled limbs more facilitate short glides catch it. Their descendants scurry and glide after lunch, and those who can manage a simple form of low flight for very short distances catch it. Their descendants scurry and glide and fly, and those who manage to climb trees and ambush lunch by flying down on it catch it, and avoid predators on the ground to boot. Their ancestors find more stuff to eat, and are safer from predators, and meet a lot more girls by flying from tree to tree. As Woody Allen said of nature, "it's like an enormous restaurant." Maybe a pick up bar is more like it. In any case, it's all based on individual traits among members of a given species. You don't need half wings that don't do anything (although presumably you might find them on birds who have lost the ability to fly because over the eons they found a better way to do business). Now I know it didn't all work exactly like that. The point is that natural selection could have managed the job. It would not have required flight to have been the objective all along.

Why did you write in such big font? Are you SHOUTING? Fill in the missing words: The dodo, he changed into the ...............

Dead duck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

You know what I never understood about evolution? Okay so presumably birds that fly evolved from dinosaurs, and presumably the way evolution works is through the natural selection of advantageous traits through random mutation, but isn't flight sort of all or nothing? I mean what advantage did the dinosaurs with half a wing and too much bone density to take off have over their non winged counterparts.

This keeps bothering me.

---

There is a lot that bothers me about neo-Darwinism. The way Ecurb describes it is the way I see neo-Darwinism as well. Here are some points that come to mind:

1) Paleontologists (Eldredge or Gould) note that fossils are laid down in sedimentation layers with breaks between groups of fossils. The actual changes occur over a brief period of time and then they stabilize. Those changes are better described by "punctuated equilibrium" rather than a random mutation process.

2) The Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics should not be rejected as quickly as neo-Darwinists have done.

3) The existence of "hypermutation" in E. coli bacteria in the lab puts in question the random mutation process and moves the unit of evolutionary change from the genes within the cell back to groups of individuals at the species level.

4) After decoding the human genome, one would expect, if the theory were correct, that we would see genetic based cures by now. Rather emphasis seems to have shifted to "epigenetics" which seems to signal a failure of the original genetics approach. This makes me think that there is more going on in species change than genes can account for.

5) Philosophically, the reductionism of life to an unconscious gene has lead some philosophers of mind such as Thomas Nagel to reject neo-Darwinism. Basically biology needs to account for the awareness of the individual member of any species.

I think neo-Darwinism reached its peak prior to the decoding of the human genome. After that one is now looking for that research expense to pay off in some practical way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

Ecurb: I just want to note, in case you missed it before, that Aaron is 14 years old. Given that, his early attempt at understanding evolution is quite admirable. :)

That being said, Aaron, Ecurb is a very knowledgable fellow, and you can learn a lot from his critique. Since he has covered all of what I would have cautioned you about in terms of biology, I will just make the stylistic suggestion that you remove the word "basically" and "basic" from your essay. These words are often (as here) unnecessary and make what would otherwise be keen and powerful sentences a bit flabby. Always question these words when you write (unless you are writing dialogue). They are seldom necessary and best avoided.

Clopin (and Easy): I'm no biologist, either, but I am not as troubled about the evolution of flight as you are. Clearly some transitional forms are missing, but that is to be expected in light of how rarely fossils form. It requires rather precise environmental conditions (usually involving the dead organism being almost immediately covered with some kind of geological matrix), that the fossil be spared destruction in the earth, and that it be found at all--a pretty rare combination when you think about it. Compare the few fossils that make it through that gauntlet to the total number of organisms that have died on the planet and you'll see my point. It's not unusual that many transitional forms would be missing (although we do have some). In fact, it would be expected.

Okay, but I get it that that is not what you were asking about. It seems to me (in my no doubt naive "science for Classics majors" sort of way) that natural selection could have turned the trick of flight quite handily. Critters scurry after lunch, and those with less dense bones are fast enough to catch it (and the others don't live long enough to reproduce as much). Their descendants keep on scurrying for lunch, and those who leap better catch it. Their descendants scurry after lunch and those with more fluffy scales leap even better, and catch it. Their descendants scurry after lunch, and those whose feathery scaled limbs more facilitate short glides catch it. Their descendants scurry and glide after lunch, and those who can manage a simple form of low flight for very short distances catch it. Their descendants scurry and glide and fly, and those who manage to climb trees and ambush lunch by flying down on it catch it, and avoid predators on the ground to boot. Their ancestors find more stuff to eat, and are safer from predators, and meet a lot more girls by flying from tree to tree. As Woody Allen said of nature, "it's like an enormous restaurant." Maybe a pick up bar is more like it. In any case, it's all based on individual traits among members of a given species. You don't need half wings that don't do anything (although presumably you might find them on birds who have lost the ability to fly because over the eons they found a better way to do business. Now I know it didn't all work exactly like that. The point is that natural selection could have managed the job. It would not have required flight to have been the objective all along.

---

Yeah I'm no scientist either, and I'm not really anti-evolution either. I just read a book once and the author was talking about flight and eyes, but he said there are a lot tougher things to be explained. His big issue was blood clotting. He was a biochemist and maintained that at the biochemical level it was impossible for the blood clotting system to have evolved gradually over time. Couldn't quite understand why because me is not smart. Sounded compelling though! I think at the end of the day whether you are a Darwinmacroevolutionist or a Godcreationsevenactualdays person, or even somewhere in between, it takes a lot of faith to truly believe what you believe. Some are just more comfortable admitting it.
Easy out. :)

On the evolution of blood clotting:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev.../Clotting.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Star

On the evolution of blood clotting:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev.../Clotting.html

---

Ahhh. Mutation (subtly inserted) saves the day again! I think the OP is on the right track after all...

And this goes back to my comment about faith. I would wager that 90% of folks who believe all life on earth evolved from a puddle of protein do not understand what the heck that guy is talking about.... Yet they believe. That = faith

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

The answer to dinosaurs growing wings is supposedly that they started jumping and the ones with half wings (or one one thousandth of wings I guess) were more efficient at it until they learned to fly.

I know that reproduction is difficult to reconcile with evolution from single celled organisms because two different and complimentary reproductive systems had to evolve at the same time randomly and randomly work together to produce offspring, instead of just through cell mitosis. Generally when something (you mentioned sight) is an all or nothing, either it works or it doesn't, proposition, I find it hard to see the evolutionary explanation for how it came about, but obviously I'm no biologist.

---

Works with lactose intolerance too. In a population where a mutation is beneficial to the rate of surviving descendants, the mutated genome will become more common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

And this goes back to my comment about faith. I would wager that 90% of folks who believe all life on earth evolved from a puddle of protein do not understand what the heck that guy is talking about.... Yet they believe. That = faith

---

But that faith is rather better placed than faith on a creationist belief, none of which are supported by any factual data. Belief in reason and scientific method is not the same thing as blind religious faith.

Bacterial hypermutation raised by YesNo isn't relevant when discussing multi-cell organisms reproducing sexually, as the mutation would have to happen in the gametes, and then it wouldn't affect the individual itself in any way. Mutations do happen in the gametes of course, but it is a fact that how our environment affects us doesn't affect our children's genes (apart from e.g. radiation-induced mutations of course).

Quote:

---

4) After decoding the human genome, one would expect, if the theory were correct, that we would see genetic based cures by now. Rather emphasis seems to have shifted to "epigenetics" which seems to signal a failure of the original genetics approach. This makes me think that there is more going on in species change than genes can account for.

---

The obvious answer to this is that human genome isn't even close to being completely decoded. The study of epigenetics is far from being an indicator of a failure, as it is a crucial part to understanding how genes function. Would you say that airplanes are a failure since aerodynamics are still studied a hundred years afterwards?

Quote:

---

5) Philosophically, the reductionism of life to an unconscious gene has lead some philosophers of mind such as Thomas Nagel to reject neo-Darwinism. Basically biology needs to account for the awareness of the individual member of any species.

---

By gene you mean genome, as a gene is just a segment of it.

As for awareness vs genome, the genome is just a sort of blueprint for all the different types of cells in a body. Studying how the genome affects the build of a single neurone to figure out how consciousness is possible is like studying how modern society works and was built by studying the domestic life of Scottish chimney sweeps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

The problem you are referring to, Clopin, is called the problem of "irreducible complexity", and it's an issue evolutionary science has been dealing with for years. Flight is not generally the biggest problem: we all know that flying squirrels and flying snakes can glide -- and so over millions of years, it's possible to see how flight evolved. More problematic issues in "irreducible complexity" involve the development of the eye (and vision) and the development of sexual reproduction. I don't have time to look up anything about these issues (and I don't know any answers off the top of my head) -- but if you google "irreducible complexity" you will probably come up with some answers (or at least a discussion of the subject).

---

Bloody hell... "irreducible complexity" is spouted by Intelligent Design nitwits, who likely haven't read a recent book on evolution, or ever read a book on evolution. There is not so much mystery as you'd like to believe concerning the eye/vision; it shows up remarkably early in the fossil record, early Cambrian Period to be exact during the "Cambrian Explosion", some 500 million years ago. There were even creatures that had elaborate eyes, but no central nervous system. Furthermore, these creatures lived in our oceans and scientists suspect that a clear membrane developed over eyes to protect them, this later developed into a lens of sort. Indeed, I have a fossil of a trilobite on one of my bookshelves that had eyes... it's dated at 350 million years. And btw, some creatures developed eyes, and further down the evolutionary path lost them.
Did you people really attend university?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Star

As for awareness vs genome, the genome is just a sort of blueprint for all the different types of cells in a body. Studying how the genome affects the build of a single neurone to figure out how consciousness is possible is like studying how modern society works and was built by studying the domestic life of Scottish chimney sweeps.

---

Some of the articles I've read in the last while on human consciousness, how it comes to be and exactly what it is, are coming at the problem from a different direction. Scientists have long been looking for what part of the brain houses/governs our consciousness... but it may be that consciousness is created by the vast network and interconnectivity of all parts of the brain.
Anyhow, for those who care, this article will make you think...
http://www.livescience.com/47096-the...ciousness.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

Bloody hell... "irreducible complexity" is spouted by Intelligent Design nitwits, who likely haven't read a recent book on evolution, or ever read a book on evolution. There is not so much mystery as you'd like to believe concerning the eye/vision; it shows up remarkably early in the fossil record, early Cambrian Period to be exact during the "Cambrian Explosion", some 500 million years ago. There were even creatures that had elaborate eyes, but no central nervous system. Furthermore, these creatures lived in our oceans and scientists suspect that a clear membrane developed over eyes to protect them, this later developed into a lens of sort. Indeed, I have a fossil of a trilobite on one of my bookshelves that had eyes... it's dated at 350 million years. And btw, some creatures developed eyes, and further down the evolutionary path lost them.
Did you people really attend university?

---

I dislike the attitude that there can't be any dialogue on evolution except with 'creationist nitwits'. I am definitely not a creationist, by the way (and i can't spek for Ecurb but i strongly suspect he is not either) I'm just not exactly certain how a couple things (like reproduction) could have developed through random mutation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Star

But that faith is rather better placed than faith on a creationist belief, none of which are supported by any factual data. Belief in reason and scientific method is not the same thing as blind religious faith.

---

When I hear questioning of neo-Darwinism generate discussions of creationism, I suspect neo-Darwinism has something to hide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Star

Bacterial hypermutation raised by YesNo isn't relevant when discussing multi-cell organisms reproducing sexually, as the mutation would have to happen in the gametes, and then it wouldn't affect the individual itself in any way.

---

What I find most interesting about hypermutation is that this is evidence that mutation can occur in other ways than through a random process. Also the initiation of hypermutation is caused by the response of a group of bacteria trying to survive changes in their environment. This seems to me to undermine neo-Darwinism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Star

The obvious answer to this is that human genome isn't even close to being completely decoded. The study of epigenetics is far from being an indicator of a failure, as it is a crucial part to understanding how genes function. Would you say that airplanes are a failure since aerodynamics are still studied a hundred years afterwards?

---

I thought the human genome project completed in 2003: http://www.genome.gov/10001772.

Genes are certainly part of an explanation of how evolutionary change occurred. I don't see the neo-Darwinist explanation being a complete explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Star

As for awareness vs genome, the genome is just a sort of blueprint for all the different types of cells in a body. Studying how the genome affects the build of a single neurone to figure out how consciousness is possible is like studying how modern society works and was built by studying the domestic life of Scottish chimney sweeps.

---

I am not a member of any religious group although I identify myself with panentheism because I see no alternative to this given the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of quantum physics. Thomas Nagel is an atheist. Both of us, from different motivations, see a problem with neo-Darwinism since it ultimately attempts to reduce consciousness to an unconscious gene (or genonme) no matter how irrationally one claims this unconsciousness is "selfish".

Since the theory is reductionist the analysis must, at least theoretically, synthesize back up. That is, one has to be able to show how those Scottish chimney sweeps explain modern society or the reduction of modern society to chimney sweeps fails. Nagel favors a form of panpsychism which puts consciousness at the level of the genome in some unclear (to me) way. I would probably go with Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance.

Waking up this morning thinking about this thread I wonder if some sort of modified Lamarckian explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism) may not also be at work. The problem I have with Lamarckism is that it is focused on an organism rather than a group of organisms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

Some of the articles I've read in the last while on human consciousness, how it comes to be and exactly what it is, are coming at the problem from a different direction. Scientists have long been looking for what part of the brain houses/governs our consciousness... but it may be that consciousness is created by the vast network and interconnectivity of all parts of the brain.
Anyhow, for those who care, this article will make you think...
http://www.livescience.com/47096-the...ciousness.html

---

All one really knows are "correlates of consciousness" which the article uses as one of its headings. This does not lead to conclusions about causality. It could be that the mind causes the brain's correlated changes or that the brain causes the mind's correlated changes that we experience. It could be both depending on what one means by "mind".

All one needs is one validated out-of-body experience to give primacy to the mind.

Although I don't understand how this conclusion is derived from the theory, I do agree with the following supposed consequence of integrated information theory:

An interesting corollary of integrated information theory is that no computer simulation, no matter how faithfully it replicates a human mind, could ever become conscious. Koch put it this way: "You can simulate weather in a computer, but it will never be 'wet.'"

This tells me that we will learn valuable information about our brains from these theories leading to improvements in our lives, but they do not completely explain consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Star

But that faith is rather better placed than faith on a creationist belief, none of which are supported by any factual data. Belief in reason and scientific method is not the same thing as blind religious faith.

---

All I'm saying is that if someone personally does not understand how this all might have happened, and they are relying on another persons experience or assumptions (whether the assumptions are logical to that person or not), they are taking the same leap of faith that others are when they choose to believe alternative possibilities. It is no different. And people may argue "but.......science!"
To that I would say that, until recently, science had me avoiding eggs and bone-in sirloin steaks from the capital grill. Now eggs are great and it's not red meat but "processed" meats that are bad for you. I'll never get those meals back!! :)
Incidentally I remember reading in the Talmud that for it's size there is nothing healthier for you to eat than an egg (paraphrased).
And my only point for raising that jab at science is just to point out that we really don't know much about much. Science fluctuates and adjusts as new evidence becomes available. What bothers me is that until the new evidence becomes available the scientific community (and supporters of certain scientific claims) can be as dogmatic as any religious group. People are persecuted and derided for even looking in another direction. Check out some of the comments below "Honestly, did you people even attend university?" That sort of thing. We haven't even had electricity for very long. The Neutron wasn't discovered until 1932. The earth revolves around the sun? That idea is less than 500 years old. Why on earth someone would believe that we can definitively answer the questions of the origin of life, or the diversity of life on earth seems absolutely preposterous to me. And I don't think I am alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

Bloody hell... "irreducible complexity" is spouted by Intelligent Design nitwits, who likely haven't read a recent book on evolution, or ever read a book on evolution.

---

Michael Behe, a leading proponent for the idea of irreducible complexity :

Behe grew up in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where he attended grade school at St. Margaret Mary School and later graduated from Bishop McDevitt High School. He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

All I'm saying is that if someone personally does not understand how this all might have happened, and they are relying on another persons experience or assumptions (whether the assumptions are logical to that person or not), they are taking the same leap of faith that others are when they choose to believe alternative possibilities. It is no different. And people may argue "but.......science!"

---

This is only kind of true, I mean, I've never been to Italy, or seen Rome, the fact that Italy even exists at all is something I've accepted through other peoples experiences and assumptions. I don't think, however, that believing in the existence of Italy is quite the same as making a religious leap of faith.

Funnily enough there's a Dickinson poem which covers this but draws the exact opposite conclusion, regarding religious faith at least:

I never saw a moor;
I never saw the sea,
Yet know I how the heather looks
And what a billow be.

I never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven.
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the checks were given

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

Check out some of the comments below "Honestly, did you people even attend university?" That sort of thing. We haven't even had electricity for very long. The Neutron wasn't discovered until 1932. The earth revolves around the sun? That idea is less than 500 years old. Why on earth someone would believe that we can definitively answer the questions of the origin of life, or the diversity of life on earth seems absolutely preposterous to me. And I don't think I am alone.

---

Good call. I've also always found it inherently contradictory that Atheists who believe in a randomly assembling universe through random mutation (and I don't mean to denigrate atheists who believe in a universe assembled through random mutations, I largely fall into that belief myself), should be so sure that human beings are even equipped to discover the mysteries of the universe. It seems oddly anthropocentric for a doctrine which states that humans only exist by chance. If ants and people can exist on the same planet and both evolved through natural selection is there any reason why there can't be creatures with brains several hundred thousand times the size of our own? Would anybody expect an ant to be able to build a nuclear power plant or a space station? I think it's likely that just as many things are as far beyond our capacity as creating suspension bridges, skyscrapers and nuclear reactors are beyond the capabilities of ants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

This is only kind of true, I mean, I've never been to Italy, or seen Rome, the fact that Italy even exists at all is something I've accepted through other peoples experiences and assumptions. I don't think, however, that believing in the existence of Italy is quite the same as making a religious leap of faith.

Funnily enough there's a Dickinson poem which covers this but draws the exact opposite conclusion, regarding religious faith at least:

I never saw a moor;
I never saw the sea,
Yet know I how the heather looks
And what a billow be.

I never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven.
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the checks were given

---

Nice! I like the poem!

To what you said yes, I see your point, but.... You could conceivably get on a plain and fly to Italy and confirm what you have been told. However, you might dedicate many years to the study of the origin of life, genetics, biochemistry, etc and come to a different conclusion than the mainstream scientific opinion. Michael Behe did. See the difference?
Ultimately you end up with a scenario like the one Pompey Bum describes. A dinosaur did this and that and this and it evolved (paraphrased). But no one observed this. At a very basic level it is like someone saying that Moses parted the red sea with a staff infused with the power of God. The evolutionist might say, well it must of happened because here we are! That is the same thing the churchman would say. But for different reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

Good call. I've also always found it inherently contradictory that Atheists who believe in a randomly assembling universe through random mutation (and I don't mean to denigrate atheists who believe in a universe assembled through random mutations, I largely fall into that belief myself), should be so sure that human beings are even equipped to discover the mysteries of the universe. It seems oddly anthropocentric for a doctrine which states that humans only exist by chance. If ants and people can exist on the same planet and both evolved through natural selection is there any reason why there can't be creatures with brains several hundred thousand times the size of our own? Would anybody expect an ant to be able to build a nuclear power plant or a space station? I think it's likely that just as many things are as far beyond our capacity as creating suspension bridges, skyscrapers and nuclear reactors are beyond the capabilities of ants.

---

Very well said. And a very rational attitude.

Now it's only the price of the eggs. Can't win for losing. :)

The difference between the evolution of flight and the parting of the Red Sea is that there is a theoretical mechanism for one (natural selection) and none for the other, except omnipotence, which ends up a rather ad hoc way of arguing.

I don't think having faith is the same thing as using inference or speculation to plug the holes in what we can say scientifically. But that cuts both ways: I don't agree that those who credit natural selection as the means of evolution are using faith in the same way that those who accept Creation in seven days are; but neither do I join North in valuing one kind of "faith" over the other (although I certainly don't credit literally either of the Creation stories in Genesis).

For me, at least, there is nothing wrong with living with some mysteries, whether scientific or theological, at least for now (meaning at this moment in consciousness). There are certainly some things I "truly believe in," but theologically there is so much that I do not know; and scientifically, we don't know how much there may be that we don't know. For now, I am convinced that science makes lousy religion and religion makes lousy science, and personally, I find those who proselytize a morality of atheism (I'm not referring to you here, North) every bit as grating as "us and them" Biblical literalists (well, almost as grating). I try to recognize my own leaps of faith, and to hold them because I believe them to constitute intangible truths, and not because I find them convenient, or because they make me feel superior to others, or less scared. Again, I am not referring to you, North, or to you, Easy. I'm just referring to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

Now it's only the price of the eggs. Can't win for losing. :)

The difference between the evolution of flight and the parting of the Red Sea is that there is a theoretical mechanism for one (natural selection) and none for the other, except omnipotence, which ends up a rather ad hoc way of arguing.

I don't think having faith is the same thing as using inference or speculation to plug the holes in what we can say scientifically. But that cuts both ways: I don't agree that those who credit natural selection as the means of evolution are using faith in the same way that those who accept Creation in seven days are; but neither do I join North in valuing one kind of "faith" over the other (although I certainly don't credit literally either of the Creation stories in Genesis).

For me, at least, there is nothing wrong with living with some mysteries, whether scientific or theological, at least for now (meaning at this moment in consciousness). There are certainly some things I "truly believe in," but theologically there is so much that I do not know; and scientifically, we don't know how much there may be that we don't know. For now, I am convinced that science makes lousy religion and religion makes lousy science, and personally, I find those who proselytize a morality of atheism (I'm not referring to you here, North) every bit as grating as "us and them" Biblical literalists (well, almost as grating). I try to recognize my own leaps of faith, and to hold them because I believe them to constitute intangible truths, and not because I find them convenient, or because they make me feel superior to others, or less scared. Again, I am not referring to you, North, or to you, Easy. I'm just referring to me.

---

I have read a lot of your postings. In fact I tend to gravitate towards them because I think you are a very intelligent person, a thoughtful writer, and you tend to treat everyone with respect. I definitely agree wholeheartedly with you in spirit. My faith is my own as well, and the things I have come to believe, I believe for the same reasons that you do. My belief system is more open/work in progress. I am open to just about anything, including evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. I have no problem fitting just about any idea within the framework of my faith. In fact, I used to avoid discussions like this on the internet, because they seemed pointless. Everyone who posts has their opinion and are not likely to change that opinion. Occasionally, like now, however I think about people who may come along and read this later. My biggest irritant in life is close-mindedness, and it bothers me sometimes that people don't question much of anything, especially when it comes from the communities of science and medicine. I love science, and I love medicine, but neither is infallible. History has plainly shown us that. I just find it hard to swallow that from the scientific community you almost never here the phrase "We are not sure." I know this is the case sometimes, and I think it would lend credibility to the institution if it were allowed. There must always be an answer, even if it has some pretty big holes in it. Otherwise people will lose faith.
:)

That is very kind of you, Easy--probably too kind, but thank you. I've enjoyed your posts, too, and your great taste in books, and I have been happy to see you posting here more frequently in the last few weeks. There are lots of people on this site who are capable of engaging and challenging each other's ideas without closing their minds (or being rude). I don't always agree with YesNo, and Ecurb, and Jonathan (though sometimes I do) but I have learned so much from their ideas. And I'm a great fan of younger folks like Clopin, and Lykren, and Dark Muse, who are fair and open minded, but speak freely and fearlessly. And there are lots of others I'm not mentioning (sorry--I love you guys, too :)). Anyway, not to get too mushy, but thank you. I'm very complimented by your comments.

Oh I get it! The reason why I said that we pass down the mutations and stuff genetically was because that was how my teacher explained it to me. Thanks for correcting me :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

I dislike the attitude that there can't be any dialogue on evolution except with 'creationist nitwits'. I am definitely not a creationist, by the way (and i can't spek for Ecurb but i strongly suspect he is not either) I'm just not exactly certain how a couple things (like reproduction) could have developed through random mutation.

---

I think the problem might be that your concept of randomness is overly simplistic... this is how I was introduced to a different way of conceptualizing randomness, whether it be in a biological sense (evolution), or the cosmos at large... stars, planets, moons... everything! Randomness exists within inevitability. The fact that I'm typing this right now, that I exist at all is the result of randomness on a scale none of us can imagine. The fact that a person is right now typing a semi-coherent message on a literature forum is inevitable.
How can we be certain of it's inevitability?.. because it just happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

I think the problem might be that your concept of randomness is overly simplistic... this is how I was introduced to a different way of conceptualizing randomness, whether it be in a biological sense (evolution), or the cosmos at large... stars, planets, moons... everything! Randomness exists within inevitability. The fact that I'm typing this right now, that I exist at all is the result of randomness on a scale none of us can imagine. The fact that a person is right now typing a semi-coherent message on a literature forum is inevitable.
How can we be certain of it's inevitability?.. because it just happened.

---

The existence of the message does not mean it was inevitable. That is just one theory explaining why it exists. The message could have been the result of a choice that was not inevitable. That would be another theory explaining why it exists.

The reason people accept deterministic-random ideas is because they do not want choice to enter into the theory in any way. That would imply the existence of consciousness needed to make the choice.

At the level of quantum physics, what one sees is not randomness, but uncertainty. Electrons sent through a double slit one at a time will generate a wave pattern, not a random pattern. They seem to make individual choices as each one goes through the double slit taking into account what the electrons going through earlier have already chosen.

If those electrons actually made a random pattern, interpretations such as many worlds would have an easier time. They could calculate the probability of an event occurring rather than having to check all the many worlds (which they cannot see) to get a result that can be used in a prediction. The uncertainty, rather than the randomness, of quantum probabilities is one of the main reasons to reject many worlds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The existence of the message does not mean it was inevitable. That is just one theory explaining why it exists. The message could have been the result of a choice that was not inevitable. That would be another theory explaining why it exists.

The reason people accept deterministic-random ideas is because they do not want choice to enter into the theory in any way. That would imply the existence of consciousness needed to make the choice.

At the level of quantum physics, what one sees is not randomness, but uncertainty. Electrons sent through a double slit one at a time will generate a wave pattern, not a random pattern. They seem to make individual choices as each one goes through the double slit taking into account what the electrons going through earlier have already chosen.

If those electrons actually made a random pattern, interpretations such as many worlds would have an easier time. They could calculate the probability of an event occurring rather than having to check all the many worlds (which they cannot see) to get a result that can be used in a prediction. The uncertainty, rather than the randomness, of quantum probabilities is one of the main reasons to reject many worlds.

---

The Law of Inevitability; something must happen.
The law of inevitability says that one of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur. All possible outcomes are therefore inevitable.

This article explains what I mean, it's sort of the fuel that runs Darwin's Engine...
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-of-life/

Although something must happen, any particular thing need not happen right now. I wonder if the law of inevitability is a falsifiable theory?

I've seen that article before. I suspect Jeremy England is trying to show that the appearance of life can be reduced to thermodynamics in some way through dissipating energy. My suspicion is that more is involved. Nagel's panpsychism may be what is needed to add the consciousness component.

I don't have as much problem with Darwinism as I do with neo-Darwinism where everything is reduced to genes being modified only through random mutations. Darwin allowed for Lamarckian inheritance.

As I see it, epigenetics is a way to reintroduce Larmarkian properties if epigenetic changes are inherited. If that is the case, then what a group of organisms do to survive affect what evolves. Evolution is then not just about reproductive activity and which genes get passed on. This also puts the focus of evolution back onto groups of organisms which change into different species and away from genes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Although something must happen, any particular thing need not happen right now. I wonder if the law of inevitability is a falsifiable theory?

I've seen that article before. I suspect Jeremy England is trying to show that the appearance of life can be reduced to thermodynamics in some way through dissipating energy. My suspicion is that more is involved. Nagel's panpsychism may be what is needed to add the consciousness component.

I don't have as much problem with Darwinism as I do with neo-Darwinism where everything is reduced to genes being modified only through random mutations. Darwin allowed for Lamarckian inheritance.

As I see it, epigenetics is a way to reintroduce Larmarkian properties if epigenetic changes are inherited. If that is the case, then what a group of organisms do to survive affect what evolves. Evolution is then not just about reproductive activity and which genes get passed on. This also puts the focus of evolution back onto groups of organisms which change into different species and away from genes.

---

What Jeremy England is saying, is that since we know Life doesn't violate the physical laws of the universe, it must be these laws that propagate life. Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it is one inevitable consequence of a set of conditions. The real mystery to me, is what advantage does consciousness have over a simple blob of organic material?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

What Jeremy England is saying, is that since we know Life doesn't violate the physical laws of the universe, it must be these laws that propagate life. Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it is one inevitable consequence of a set of conditions. The real mystery to me, is what advantage does consciousness have over a simple blob of organic material?

---

Well the development was hardly from a simple blob of organic material to a conscious human being, or even just any old mammal. The development of proteins in the primal soup was a rather extraordinary thing, but of course them developing into cells that can multiply was something else. And the differentiation of cells that led to the development of organs and much more complex creatures. Consciousness really started with organized hunting and the need to communicate information more specifically. This, and the ability to make tools use fire for e.g. cooking meat and making bread, then led to a society where affection and hatred could be shown without fighting or fondling, and agriculture and societies would eventually develop. In any and all of the aforementioned activities, consciousness is very useful indeed, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is the ultimate measure of success. We're still unable to inhabit all the places on Earth where bacteria can survive.