Printable View
I thought I'd see if anyone was interested in having a serious discussion on evolution, because so much of the bias against current scientific theories of evolution are often based on simple mistakes like this:
http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/v...ddervstree.gif
Any takers?
(I promise to leave the Bunsen burner turned off.)
Mostly...
mostly what, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
If it's about the picture, both are wrong, in my understanding ... :rolleyes: (Man didn't come from insect. Both insect and man may have common ancestor -- according to science --, but it's a more serious talk than the image shown above ... Even so, it's a good begining.)
If you're talking about the Bunsen burner ... it's up to Serious Cat!
I'll bite. Where's the mistake?
That does refer to the Bunsen burner.Quote:
Originally Posted by librarius_qui
:D
Nope, the right-hand picture is quite right - even if there wasn't one common ancestor, the single-celled organisms were similar enough to be considered fruit from the same tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by librarius_qui
It's just not a well-drawn tree.
The ladder is a diagram used by evolution deniers who misrepresent evolution as goal-based.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Okay. Then if not goal-based, what is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I've, ah, run up against evolution with you before ;). I just want to define the terms before I start making any arguments.
Evolution is just one step. Not saying it is wrong, because, from all we know, it most certainly is not, but people like to think of it as some conclusive answer, which it is not, and doesn't pretend to be. The actual discussion of it though, requires what we would call a deep scientific understanding of the topic, something which I personally do not posses.
As to how it functions - I think we now have a clear idea of the picture. As far as I know though, there isn't much bias against evolution. I can't see how a scientific understanding can have a bias, unless we just assume it is true, which is something we don't do.
Unless of course you are implying that in certain countries (insert country we are all thinking of here) people bias against it. Well, that's nonsense at any rate, and gets too much media coverage as it is.
As for goal based - it is not goal based, but the ladder does show an important feature of it - the processional evolution, meaning the fish came first, or rather, the fishlike thing came first, as we are made to believe life started in the water. Certainly the human shaped primate is a later stage.
It isn't anything. Mutations happen through the interaction of viruses or other influence and either turn out to be beneficial or not. Beneficial ones survive and prosper, others die out.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Because only the strong survive, it tends to look like a goal-based system, but that's an incorrect way of seeing it. It just is.
I've been looking into the subject for over 40 years and disagree with you. The excellent web resources available also tend to refute the idea. I'm nobody's botanist, but I think it is possible to have a lay understanding of the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Just as you don't need to be a nuclear physicist to understand an atomic explosion, I don't think a degree in botany or genetics is essential to understand evolution.
I started the thread because of some comments in a religious discussion showed that people still have been taught evolution by people biased against the fact that it exists. Country of origin is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
And that's just the kind of misconception which abounds and which creates the opportunity for misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Flowering plants appeared after mammals, does that make them "higher" than mammals?
The ladder doesn't show any feature of evolution, and since the earth will probably be around for a few billion years yet, it would be a little arrogant to assume that we're at the top of any chain beyond the food one right now. We've ruled the earth for a few thousand years while dinosaurs held complete control for over a hundred million years. Check back on that idea in several hundred million years time.
The drawing should have included a bird as well. :)
Here's one thing that I've never felt that evolution (what little I know of it) has really explained well: How did mud turn into an amoeba? The step from non-life to life just does not seem like a small change. Or, if mud never did turn into an amoeba, then life must have just appeared one day, which is not evolutionary.
I'm no theist really, just a curious agnostic. What's the going evolutionary idea on life's origin?
Good Hunting!
EDIT: I used the mud/amoeba language for mere illustration's sake, not out of any precise scientific understanding.
Evolution does not really cover the origem of life, altough the natural laws must be the same, affecting the process. Obviously, no theory about the origem is today satisfactory like Natural Selection is.
So, we're continually evolving, but we're not going anywhere? Is the world infinite?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Isn't that just theoretical, though? Seems to me that a person could interpret it in whatever way they please without changing any of the ideas evolution holds.
As is location of thread. TheAtheist, I took a class last year with an evolutionary psychologist, but I (a simple layperson) came up with questions that the professor wouldn't answer because "they'd take up the rest of the classtime." My point is, there's a difference between bias and between interpreting the "facts" differently. I picked the interpretation that covers more bases than evolution does.Quote:
I started the thread because of some comments in a religious discussion showed that people still have been taught evolution by people biased against the fact that it exists. Country of origin is irrelevant.
I think it's sensible to stick to meaningful but not entirely correct terms if it helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Comedian
As noted, that's not part of evolution, although it did, of course start the evolutionary process.
The term for the creation of life is "abiogenesis". Exactly how it happened will remain in doubt until we actually manage to simulate the process in a laboratory, and since we have no idea what the exact chemical compilation of the earth was 4 billion years ago, it's pretty hit and miss and various theories abound.
What we do know for sure is that amino acids exist, both as separate molecules - in the mud, as it were - and inside living tissue of all types, plant and animal. We also know that amino acids are apt to replicate on their own; pions - the source of mad cow disease - are a great example of them. Prions kill brains by going around busting things which causes proteins in the brain to "free flow" and then they replicate the pattern of the prions inside the brain - much the same as a virus does, but while there is debate over whether viruses are "alive" prions definitely are not.
It's not too big a jump to see replicating protein suddenly making the jump to "life", so at the moment, that's the direction scientific enquiry is taking. There are some interesting competing theories, one of which is all about data input from the sun, which makes a kind of sense as well. As a teenager in the 1970s, I predicted that we'd have the answer by now, but we're still looking. We're a lot closer than we were 35 years ago, but whether I'll live to see life created from chemicals in a lab, I can only hope!
I hope that helps.
The world certainly isn't infinite, as it will be destroyed by the sun at some stage. Whether or not humans will exist at that stage, I have no idea, but my tendency is to think that we won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
The problem with imagining evolution is the enormous time-scales involved. People wonder why humans aren't evolving into something else. We may well be, but it also might take 5 million years and we've only been writing things down for a few thousand.
Just as a divert, I think human intelligence is a dead end and that we'll die out. At that stage, some species will take our place at the top of the food chain.
Imagine an alien arrival to earth standing where you are in 50,000,000 years time, excavating a trench and finding fossil records of humans. They will deduce that a species rose to prominence then died out, with insect life then dominating the planet until the alien's arrival.
We're looking at evolution from particular point in time and it tends to distort the view.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
While DNA can mutate, it isn't interchangeable, which is why hardly any cross-speciation exists in the wild. Even very similar birds, which could produce hybrid offspring just don't do it. The hard evidence behind the theory of evolution fills libraries.
Ah, well that's just bad teaching, but the thread already has a few decent questions, so it wasn't a bad idea either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
You know? According to my little understanding of the Evolution theory, man walks toward extinction ... Once religions say something similar, what's the worry? We all know it, and we all can see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
:lol: Why isn't it that big a jump? Define "big." Did life happen by an accidental mutation? Then how did...brains come into existence, because life doesn't necessarily mean intelligence? If millions of years, whyyyyyyy is there such a range of types of humanity - how can we have a Hitler in the same generation as an Einstein? Why are there so many different personality types, and how come the dominant ones haven't killed out the submissive ones? Why can some people murder without a second thought and others not be able to kill a fly?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
May I suggest another? transitional species. As fervent a creationist as I am, the thousands of transitional species there must be lying around someplace would be evidence, incontrovertible, that evolution must have taken place.Quote:
The problem with imagining evolution is the enormous time-scales involved. People wonder why humans aren't evolving into something else. We may well be, but it also might take 5 million years and we've only been writing things down for a few thousand.
Though I must say, the scrambling around people have done throughout the centuries to come up with one - Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon man, Java Man, etc. - is rather pathetic and not at all scientific. Not at all honest, either!
Furthermore, why don't scientists everywhere unanimously embrace evolution theory? Why do they find things that disprove it?
Insects? why insects? Aren't they lower on the food chain/evolutionary process?Quote:
Imagine an alien arrival to earth standing where you are in 50,000,000 years time, excavating a trench and finding fossil records of humans. They will deduce that a species rose to prominence then died out, with insect life then dominating the planet until the alien's arrival.
Wait, wait, WAIT. In the first sentence there's no "cross-speciation," which I take it means transitional species? And yet in the third sentence "the hard evidence behind the theory of evolution fills libraries"? Really? But even "very similar birds, which could produce hybrid offspring just don't do it."Quote:
While DNA can mutate, it isn't interchangeable, which is why hardly any cross-speciation exists in the wild. Even very similar birds, which could produce hybrid offspring just don't do it. The hard evidence behind the theory of evolution fills libraries.
But lib, evolution makes man god, which is NEVER good!Quote:
Originally Posted by librarius_qui
Not arguing either way but how, does that work. God is Omnipotent and a maker, even with evolutionary theory Humans didn't create themselves, they are a product of a greater force, perhaps random chance perhaps evolution itself. if evolution creates any 'false gods' then as I see it it follows it would be Nature, Evolution itself, random chance or Chaos that becomes the controlling feature and thus by that argument God.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Me I tend to stand with evolution is a feature or by product of Creation or even the Tool of Creation, Ive never seen why God and evolution can't co-exsist.
I mean the humans evolved from mud thing? wasn't Adam made of dirt or dust?
Bingo. :thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Well, if you check out strings of protein and a single-celled life form, the onylrecognisable difference is that the cell has a cellulose wall around it. That's why viruses are a great example - some are enclosed in cellulose, some aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Correct. Brains evolved as a result of the cortex being the place where nerve signals were transmitted from, and at some stage, became able to store information.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
If you imagine a tree, which is alive but has no brain, and a snail, which is alive and does have a rudimentary brain, there isn't much difference in "intelligence". A tree loses its leaves in winter because different receptors notice the changing temperature and the DNA is coded for leaves to fall off. A snail is reacting the same way to its environment, but through a different system.
The evolution of animalian intelligence is mirrored by computers, but in a much shorter time span, obviously. Early computers were incredibly slow and ineffectual compared to the present day. I recall seeing one 40 years ago which took up a whole room, but took 2.5 hours to do a payroll I can now do in about .1 of a second on my laptop.
That's nothing to do with evolution at all - beyond evolving the ability to make those decisions. All that does is prove that morality isn't hard-wired. Some people have no morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
As to the dominant ones killing all the submissives, I don't know whether you follow the news pages at all, but it's still happening. Check out Rwanda for selfish genes at work. Another excellent example I have locally is the Moriori - a tribe which were exterminated by other tribes. And as to Hitler, he had a pretty good go at wiping several races out.
All you need to do is ask...Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
In fact, the links already given cover an enormous amount of transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a favourite as the transition between dinosaurs and birds, but if you've missed data on transitional species, you haven't been looking hard enough.
Seek and you will find!
:D
Incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Yes, there have been a couple of bad errors and a fraud, but overall, the science is strong. Again, you need to be aware of the miniscule number of animals which ever become fossils. Not having all the data is a strength, not a weakness.
Alas, if you have a look at actual scientific journals, the theory of evolution is embraced by all scientists. The only deniers are a small clique of creationists, and the classic example of that "science" is where Michael Behe had to admit in court, under oath, that creationist science isn't science at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
There is not a single piece of published data which refutes evolution.
Nothing is higher or lower than anything else in evolution. We might be smarter than insects, but they have some pretty cool systems which work - bees & ants, for example. Most insects can cope with temperature extremes and after having survived for ~350 million years, I don't see them dying out anytime soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
No, a tyransitional species is a species which has undergone mutation in a successful way and which then mutates again to become the new species. Refer archaeopteryx again.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Evolution isn't a result of species interbreeding - although there could be a case that it has happened in the past. The point was that similar species, which could breed - tigers & lions, for instance, and which have bred in captivity - just don't do it.
No it doesn't, as leading theologians from the pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury will quickly disabuse you of. They both accept evolution as factual and it makes no difference to their faith at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Again, here you go off trying to form your argument based on a fallacy of your own. Yes, plants may have formed after primates, but the plants we have now have progressed, evolved, from the plants that were there before, as to better fit their environment, and adjust to changing environment. That is a form of progress, as progress means a progression, I.E. something that changes slowly toward a different thing. You are the one who said we are at the top, and, as for now, we are, as we are more evolved from the previous primates that we were before - we are better fit for survival, which is the key function in evolution. You are assuming a morality on it, to try to disvalue the progressive element, but even if we have gone toward something that is harmful, we have still progressed to it, the same way the bacteria have reformed themselves to combat against our previous methods of destroying them. The ants have progressed, the amoebas in the water have progressed - everything has. The chain of being is the construct that doesn't work, not the progressive process.
Nope, you've completely misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Coelacanths are almost totally unchanged after ~350,000,000 years and many insect appear to be identical to hundreds of millions of years ago. Things only change if a mutation is beneficial, and some forms of life are fine as they are. Ferns are much the same after half a billion years.
No fallacy.
Another mistake. I said we're top of the food chain, which is correct. As I stated a post or two back there is no "top" in evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
We are more intelligent, not more evolved. There is no "more evolved". We are no more evolved than an amoeba. Different, sure. Better? Only if you're into making qualitative assessments about humans, which doesn't work for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I'm sorry, but I just can't figure where you get any kind of morality here, because morality has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.
You seem to be stuck on the incorrect idea that evolution is goal-based. That it isn't is entirely demonstrble by looking at species which have become extinct, thereby refuting your notion of constant improvement. It just doesn't work the way you seem to have in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I agree it's confusing, especially when you look at human achievement, because it makes progress look exponential, but that's to do with maths, not evolution.
JBI, interesting enough, Darwin was under the romantic age...
he reluted to use the term evolution. Exactly because it implied the notion of progress (which mean getting better). But Evolution was a term already accepted and he only published his 20 years research because Wallance adressed to him a letter saying he would and the term Evolution was there. So, he had to accept (being no great writter, he had not the capacity to create anything to replace it).
It was a romantic age, and Evolution just fell on the right laps, but as scientific theory, it was mostly misunderstood - Darwin never meant it as progress, unless the progress is the sucess of survival. An amoeaba is as much envolved as human beings. Obilivious, I am talkilng from the point of view of someone interessed about Darwin impact (imeasurable) on culture, and texts (his great father being a relevant poet talking about evolution already) beucase it is, in my opinion, one of the most relevant shfts of our cutlure and misundertood texts ever.
Take it easy Atheist! A little more empathy might help in the recruitment.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Originally Posted by JBI
Again, here you go off trying to form your argument based on a fallacy of your own. Yes, plants may have formed after primates, but the plants we have now have progressed, evolved, from the plants that were there before, as to better fit their environment, and adjust to changing environment. That is a form of progress, as progress means a progression, I.E. something that changes slowly toward a different thing.
Atheist writes,
"Nope, you've completely misunderstood.
Coelacanths are almost totally unchanged after ~350,000,000 years and many insect appear to be identical to hundreds of millions of years ago. Things only change if a mutation is beneficial, and some forms of life are fine as they are. Ferns are much the same after half a billion years."
I don't see how JBI made the mistake you're suggesting. Ferns reached how they are via a progression (from how they were before). You have introduced some sort of conflict about whether a stable form can be reached. JBI didn't bring it up. I figured it out by looking closely at what was written. You seem to have a habit of beginning your "arguments" with zippy attempts at humiliation. But if you slow down a bit and read carefully, you'll see that JBI actually makes the connection between progress and changing environment. There's no suggestion that unnecessary or non-beneficial changes are occurring.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Atheist wrote (further back)
Just as a divert, I think human intelligence is a dead end and that we'll die out. At that stage, some species will take our place at the top of the food chain.
Originally Posted by JBI
You are the one who said we are at the top, ....
Atheist then wrote:
Another mistake. I said we're top of the food chain, which is correct. As I stated a post or two back there is no "top" in evolution.
Well, technically right, I guess, but in no way deserves the "another mistake" that kicks things off. Re-reading the topic that you're addressing when you mention human intelligence's possible dead end, you are directly addressing humanity's prospects for evolving into something else, and how something else might replace us. Is being at the top of the food chain related to evolution? If not, why did it cap YOUR argument about the prospect of further human evolution. I mean, I can see why JBI might've gotten off course...
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Originally Posted by JBI
...and, as for now, we are, as we are more evolved from the previous primates that we were before - we are better fit for survival, which is the key function in evolution.
Atheist wrote:
We are more intelligent, not more evolved. There is no "more evolved". We are no more evolved than an amoeba. Different, sure. Better? Only if you're into making qualitative assessments about humans, which doesn't work for me.
OK, I'm not going to go back and hunt through and look for this, maybe I really am getting this wrong but if there are intermediate forms/stages in evolution, and a certain, now-extinct, primate was a direct ancestor of humans, is it really 'out of bounds' to say that the surviving, better adapted, human being is more evolved? If we can't say that, I think it would be a great service to tell us just how we should describe this very important relationship in a discussion about evolution.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Originally Posted by JBI
You are assuming a morality on it, to try to disvalue the progressive element, ...
Well, this seemed off target or unclear to me, and you handled it well, I thought.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Originally Posted by JBI
...but even if we have gone toward something that is harmful, we have still progressed to it, the same way the bacteria have reformed themselves to combat against our previous methods of destroying them. The ants have progressed, the amoebas in the water have progressed - everything has. The chain of being is the construct that doesn't work, not the progressive process.
Here, I think your (the Atheist's) response is pretty accurate, as far as it goes. The bacteria didn't purposefully reform with the goal of combatting efforts to destroy them--and this is an important point. Kudos, I know it's easy to get the wording wrong about this, even if one is perfectly aware that evolution is not about goals. In retrospect, it's easy to look back and see all of the competition going on, and give the creatures too much credit.
However, I don't think your example of 'extinct species' proves the point. It proves that those particular species didn't take on mutations that would have saved them from extinction, that's all, leaving aside whether or not they had been purposely trying (and failing) to take on those mutations/changes and evolve to some goal or another.
Also, just as important, it appears that the main point that JBI is maybe making in this quote is to reassert a lack of intermediate forms. Anyhow, I think the bit at the end about the "chain of being" is his main thrust. Anyhow, you don't address this here (because you got side-tracked, maybe?) so it might have been good to restrict the size of your quote to the mistake that you decided to address.
You actually did address the intermediate forms issue a few posts back, however, and you addressed it well, but chose to end your argument with the unfortunate, "Not having all the data is a strength, not a weakness." I think it would have maybe been more accurate to say that not having all of the data was "understandable" or "no surprise", instead of "a strength."
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Atheist, you make great points, are passionate about your position, and just the sort of voice that makes things fun sometimes. But, sometimes, if something looks a little wrong, an ounce of re-reading and an effort at empathy can maybe help bring a focus to the areas of misunderstanding, and make it easier on those who have maybe misunderstood something. And sometimes, with just a little bit of generous reading, the content and context supporting a perceived error might be found to exist somewhere other than in what's actually been written.
Ok people, I bet more than half of you can already guess what I am going to say :
BREATHE, :D
and take a step back. Don't get mad or offended, reassess and if you can't help but get very seriously annoyed then you need to consider whether it is really worth even coming to look at the thread? I can't see how it matters what other people think either way myself but I know that some people do so all I can say is breathe and let it go. Its far healthier than getting mad.
:D
I personally don't see how it matters how we've come to be in this point of History, but what matters is what we do with our lives when we have them.
I can't resist pointing out that we have no measure of intelligence other than our own and just because we can't perceive intelligence there doesn't me there isn't any. Kind of like did you know monkeys speak in dialects and regional accents? There was a study done a few years a go that discovered this, it makes a good nature-nurture debate point.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
umm this seems to be a point in favour of Intelligent design. Surly evolution wold just continue because mutations do happen anyway, and surely you would find offshoots as well? A bit like an oven and a cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
In the beginning it takes a fair bit of tweaking to get the conditions right for optimum baking, then its all hands go and everything is going smoothly the cake is both rising ad setting and its all good. But take it out too soon and it is underdone, but if its left in too long, it spoils. so what makes evolution stop when something is 'just fine'. What turns the oven off?
Ok how about you explain goal based evolution and this other evolution you are talking about and the difference between the two because I am well and truly confused now. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And do me a favour and keep it fairly simple and straight forwards so I can follow?
:D
To those who don't believe in evolution, it is pretty simple, I would say. If you just think about it in terms of change, you can see how it's necessary. The nature of everything in the universe is change. How could a species, be it a plant, or animal, or insect, remain unchanged through millenia? Everything is in constant change, even if the change is very gradual.
And, evolution is quite observable. Fruit flies, deprived of light, lose their ability to see within a short number of generations.
I missed quite a lot in this discussion - I can't see what JBI and Atheist are arguing about, for one - but what is interesting to me is what is the future of evolution. Sri Aurobindo wrote a wonderful chapter or essay in one of his books about evolution. Actually the main of his work was about humans gradually evolving into the next step. He said, would a primative ape, living in his tree, be able to comprehend that there would one day be a creature on the earth who could shape metal, make cities and civilizations, cross the oceans and fly through the air, change his outer and inner environment, and make laws according to reason? And if he could grasp this, could he understand that such a creature would eventually come from what he was then? A pretty safe assumption is no. And it's fairly obvious in this light, that there is the possibility of future evolution. Of a higher humanity, as far ahead of us in terms of evolution as we are from our ancestor.
Oh, and as for most evolved, we are not the most evolved. One thing I heard was... Whales can withstand incredible pressures in the ocean... they are highly evolved... because they have been in their environment for, I don't know the exact numbers, but quite a lot longer than humans have been on land.
Sorry Night. What I meant was, evolution holds that we came from "primordial ooze," and are not the creation of an omnipotent Designer. With that as our background, there is no higher authority but the highest intelligence there is - which is humankind. The reason I don't think that God created, ah, ooze then let evolution take over is because there's nothing in the Bible that says He did, and it isn't logical to assume, either. Because if He did there would be death before sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
And yet the cellulose wall is there to make sure that nothing...untoward enters the cell and kills/mutilates it, or that it doesn't expand and burst it, therefore killing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
...and so, a human gets cold, realizes it's cold outside, and decides to put some clothes on to keep warm? is that too just, "reacting to its environment?"Quote:
If you imagine a tree, which is alive but has no brain, and a snail, which is alive and does have a rudimentary brain, there isn't much difference in "intelligence". A tree loses its leaves in winter because different receptors notice the changing temperature and the DNA is coded for leaves to fall off. A snail is reacting the same way to its environment, but through a different system.
So computers just up and decided to evolve into a better species and the old ones died out because of survival of the fittest? It had nothing to do with, excuse me, designers of greater intelligence? So I actually could put all the pieces of a Boeing 747 in a big field, come back in a million years, and see the pieces begin melting together in the right way?Quote:
The evolution of animalian intelligence is mirrored by computers, but in a much shorter time span, obviously. Early computers were incredibly slow and ineffectual compared to the present day. I recall seeing one 40 years ago which took up a whole room, but took 2.5 hours to do a payroll I can now do in about .1 of a second on my laptop.
Still doesn't answer my question. Why is there such a range? If we keep in mind the whole "survival of the fittest" idea as evolutionists would have us do, how come people have evolved ideas like generosity? integrity? honesty? why aren't we all sleazy pathetic little liars who'll do anything to be ahead? Isn't that what we should have evolved into?Quote:
That's nothing to do with evolution at all - beyond evolving the ability to make those decisions. All that does is prove that morality isn't hard-wired. Some people have no morals.
Why isn't it universal? Shouldn't it be?Quote:
As to the dominant ones killing all the submissives, I don't know whether you follow the news pages at all, but it's still happening. Check out Rwanda for selfish genes at work. Another excellent example I have locally is the Moriori - a tribe which were exterminated by other tribes. And as to Hitler, he had a pretty good go at wiping several races out.
And I am to ignore the furious debate raging over each and every single one of these "transitional creatures?"Quote:
All you need to do is ask...
In fact, the links already given cover an enormous amount of transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a favourite as the transition between dinosaurs and birds, but if you've missed data on transitional species, you haven't been looking hard enough.
Seek and you will find!
Duly sought after, and still not found, but then, human nature being so flawed as it is...
:lol: Oh I see.Quote:
Not having all the data is a strength, not a weakness.
Thank you for speaking for all of usQuote:
Alas, if you have a look at actual scientific journals, the theory of evolution is embraced by all scientists. The only deniers are a small clique of creationists, and the classic example of that "science" is where Michael Behe had to admit in court, under oath, that creationist science isn't science at all.
So despite being smash-able, they're the "fittest?"Quote:
Nothing is higher or lower than anything else in evolution. We might be smarter than insects, but they have some pretty cool systems which work - bees & ants, for example. Most insects can cope with temperature extremes and after having survived for ~350 million years, I don't see them dying out anytime soon.
Why not? Why don't they do it?Quote:
Evolution isn't a result of species interbreeding - although there could be a case that it has happened in the past. The point was that similar species, which could breed - tigers & lions, for instance, and which have bred in captivity - just don't do it.
But my authority is neither the pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury. They may believe as they please, although it is a sorry testimony to them. My authority comes from the Bible, and through the Bible, my parents and pastors. And only insofar as they do not tell me to do something that goes against the Bible.Quote:
No it doesn't, as leading theologians from the pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury will quickly disabuse you of. They both accept evolution as factual and it makes no difference to their faith at all.
We're not more evolved than an amoeba? I won't insult you by listing the differences...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Actually, I'm planning to stop posting as soon as I get The Atheist's reply. I must exhude youthful naivete, the way people try to pull wool over my eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
ditto, please.Quote:
Ok how about you explain goal based evolution and this other evolution you are talking about and the difference between the two because I am well and truly confused now. :confused:
And do me a favour and keep it fairly simple and straight forwards so I can follow?
:D
Evolution does not say anything about primordial ooze. Evolution is something that happens with living organisms, so, before the first living organism, you do not talk about evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
That is simple minded to say at least, survival of the fittest is not the theory of evolution, it only a slogan used in the debates trying to resume it. Anyways, not only humans are able to show what we can generosity and obviously, honesty and integrity are related to human societies and not a biological event.Quote:
Still doesn't answer my question. Why is there such a range? If we keep in mind the whole "survival of the fittest" idea as evolutionists would have us do, how come people have evolved ideas like generosity? integrity? honesty? why aren't we all sleazy pathetic little liars who'll do anything to be ahead? Isn't that what we should have evolved into?
Obviously, anything is only fit to a specific task. For example, Pele would not be fit to play basketball but he was for Soccer. A bug small size allow him to occupy spaces where pretadors have more difficulty to reach, where he can find food and being smash-able, I am sure a Whale consider us very smash-able too.Quote:
So despite being smash-able, they're the "fittest?"
They do it. But the chance of survival of the result of a couple even between close specieis is reduced. Plus, many of those offsprings that manage to be an addult have problems because of this, genetic, and generate no offspring. Plus, why a tiger and a lion do not breed (considering how rare is one to find another outside a zoo) is because they smell different, have different color, do different noises and "enjoy" different sexual activities. Just like, most of the humans, are aware that a chimp is different from a woman. But hey, some dont... such is life.Quote:
Why not? Why don't they do it?
Out of offense and just due to curiosity... Do you eat pig? And do not work at saturdays or sundays? How many wives do you plan to have? And do you believe the stonning to death some a woman because an adultery is fair play?Quote:
But my authority is neither the pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury. They may believe as they please, although it is a sorry testimony to them. My authority comes from the Bible, and through the Bible, my parents and pastors. And only insofar as they do not tell me to do something that goes against the Bible.
No, we are not. Do not insult anyone listing the differences, because evolution is the existence of such differences, which are not a ranking of the "The Dearest of Mother Nature".Quote:
We're not more evolved than an amoeba? I won't insult you by listing the differences...
It is not about being better, so any attempt to list differents to prove our mighty power over amoebas is not getting the point and just a bit ridiculous.
This thread is amazing! Who wants a Darwin award?
Well, it's been going ok for the past 20 years. Empathy's more for HR practitioners than recruiters - recruiters are just high-class pimps.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
:D
Maybe I read it wrong, but he'll no doubt let me know if so.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Nope. Ask a t rex. They were at the top of the food chain for a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
This is the nub of the issue, and it is a difficult concept, because we're looking at it from a skewed preception - human - and at one particular instance in a billions-of-years process.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
You have to look beyond time and see evolution as a process which sometimes happens and which sometimes does not. As I've tried to point out, having more talent/ability/limbs/brains than another species confers no special rights or place on that species.
The expression "more evolved" doesn't exist, because it doesn't describe anything.
You're getting this one wrong as well, or maybe just putting it wrong, because mutations don't happen to save species from extinction - they just happen. A mutation for less fur may happen at the same time as a period of global cooling.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
The way you've written it, it seems to indicate that the genes have some idea of what challenges they're facing, which they don't, of course.
We agree that there's plenty of evidence, so that's good.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I see what you're saying, but I'll stick with strength, for the following reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
The theory is still fluid enough to be fine-tuned within new evidence.
It proves that the theory is factual, because the gaps are covered by predictions, which have so far turned out to be correct when later fossil evidence is found.
It shows the rigour of the hard science involved.
It protects against claims of bias or fabrication by scientists.
It would be a lot easier in some ways if we could line all the fossils up, but challenges are good!
I won't argue that intelligence exists, but whether it's of value is highly arguable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Surly evolution? Is that how men become grumpy old farts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
:D
Almost all "offshoots" die because the mutation isn't advantageous. Again, the miniscule fraction of animals which end up being fossilised means that there is no fossil record of these.
On the other hand, offshoots are as common as primordial soup - humans, gorillas, monkeys and chimpanzees are all offshoots of a common ancestor. One we haven't yet discovered, although the German fossil last week is promising.
There is no cook, no mixture, no timing, no "done". Mutations happen; successful ones may become a new species, the others die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Evolution stops when the sun explodes or there is no life left on earth.
You seem to be looking at it from the wrong angle.
Well, there is no difference, because there is no such thing as goal-based evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Evolution happens. It either works out or doesn't.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
The cellulose is there because those cells are more successful than non-encased ones, although if you've ever had norovirus or rotavirus, you'd probably agree than non-encased cells have plenty of power and aren't scared of anything.
Absolutely, but excellent example, because it allows me to bring in cats, birds and other animals which grow or shed hair & feathers in reaction to the weather changes. Birds don't decide to get their winter feathers in, it just happens automatically from coding in the DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Apologies, I confess that I put that one in there to see if it drew out the old creationist canard.
It did.
There is a difference between organic and inorganic molecules and how they behave. If we constructed Boeing 747s out of organic molecules, it might well grow back together!
As I look around me, that appears to be the case!Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
If no other animals had social groups, you'd have a point, but worker bees don't ask the queen whether they were designed to the job, or whether it's just in the genes. Lions, gorillas, elephants, dolphins.... most mammals have distinct social structure and within those structures, you can see all the types of behaviour you've described.
Nope - if traits were universal, there wouldn't be worker bees. We also still have no idea on what the split of personality type is regarding nature/nurture, so it's not too surprising we can't point to certain genes just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
No! You should enjoy and embrace it.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Again, it shows the rigour of the science - you don't get a free pass with sceintific discoveries, you have to prove it, then prove it again.
The trick is to look for actual scientific argument and avoid the cries of deniers who think it's all a big hoax anyway. If you stick to the former, you'll find that the disagreements aren't usually about whether a species is a transitional one or not, it's whether it's the particular one claimed. Science, like any human endeavour, is susceptible to hubris, and no scientist wants to let a colleague take glory he'd reserved for himself.
I'd really like you to try to get this one part into perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
At present, human discovery has led to several hundred fossils of butterlies being recovered. That's several hundred, in the whole ~300,000,000 year history of butterfies.
How many butterflies do you reckon have lived in all that time?
I can't even begin to think of how big a number it is, yet we have a lousy 300 say. Yet, from those 300, we're trying to make information fit the billions of butterflies alive today, plus, the trillions and trillions that have ever lived.
Is it really that surprising that we have so little evidence of what actually happened along the way?
Given the little evidence we do have, I'm constantly awed by the brains which manage to connect the few dots.
Evolution is like doing a puzzle of the Mona Lisa in one-pixel pieces. Yet, we're finding, as time goes on and discoveries are made, that almost all of the pieces are in the right place.
I'm hoping my rationale for that, because it really is.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Take homeopathy as a counter example. Its total weakness is its inflexibility. To make a 30C solution work, one has to do it to a formula which would make a widow weep, so no respectable scientist can be bother with failing to replicate the results they don't get. Accordingly, homeopathy flourishes in no scientific minds beyond its use as a placebo.
Evolution, on the other hand, is an open book; many an amateur fossil-hunter has made an earth-shattering discovery. One woman in NZ found a fossilised tooth in a stream-bed a few years back. Turns out she'd found the first incontrovertible evidence that large carnivores existed on our land mass, with a big t rex-looking beatie of 30' length. That tooth is available to study and be debunked in a way that pseudoscience and metaphysics can only dream about.
I wasn't speaking to them particularly, but why they or their supporters are surprised that some people object to them blatantly lying in an educational sense is surprising, given that they self-admit to fabrication of evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
It depends on the environment. A lucky combination of oxygen, atmosphere and gravity have let us assume the beautiful forms we occupy. A methane-breathing species on a huge planet with a gravitational pull 10X that of earth is likely to be one flat, ugly sucker.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Insects have done pretty well in coping with the earth's changing faces over hundreds of millions of years, so I expect them to be able to cope in whatever the future holds.
Same reason plants don't. Inter-species sex usually results in sterile offspring. I have a thoroughbred mule-breeding establishment for sale if you don't believe that one!Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
:D
You don't need to list differences, because they're irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
We're more intelligent and better-looking than amoabae, but we are not "more evolved". We're both alive today. You could make an argument that we're more evolved than dinosaurs since they died out, but in terms of species alive today, no one is "more evolved" than another.
Are we getting there?Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Oh quite. Well, all this thread has done for me is raise even more questions about evolution and therefore cement creationism. Sorry.
On my final note, I have to say I find evolution rather insulting. My faith has me as the child of the King, while evolution has me as the child of an ape. Or sludge.
Enjoy the rest of the discussion.
Of course it doesn't. That's just a straw man argument, as I'm sure you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Even so, the date of the origin of angiosperms is unclear, and may be earlier than previously thought (i.e. in the late to middle Jurassic, rather than in the Cretaceous.
This thread has gotten contentious and somewhat off topic, but Camilo has hit the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Darwin never tried to answer the question, "Where did life come from?" Other scientists have addressed that question (e.g.Oparin). Darwin's theory of evolution is simple but profound, involving the following ideas: 1) There is variability in the characteristics of living things; 2) Living things produce offspring that manifest the physical characteristics of their progenitors; Living things produce offspring that manifest the physical characteristics of their progenitors; 3) There is a struggle for survival of living things that involves competition for envirnomentally determined reasources (food, mates, etc.); and, 4) "Success" in this struggle for survival is determined by the ability of an organism to reproduce offspring that themselves survive to reproduce. The whole process is called "Natural Selection." It is like the "Artificial Selection" of plant or animal breeders, but the selector is the natural environment rather that, say, a breeder of Airedales...
It's really as simple as that. Simple, but a profound scientific insight. BTW, the idea of evolution by natural selection doesn't have to be limited to "living things." There are, for example, computer programs, like The Game of Life, that allow self-replicating programs to "evolve" under various "survival" constraints.:yawnb:
Absolutely!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
Quite right. I've tried to make it clear that all numbers are totally approximate. When you're talking a margin of error of millions of years, I wouldn't plan on celebrating any birthdays too soon!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
I responded to some points in your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Damn n00bs!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
:D
Maybe "more evolved" means that the organism has been subject to natural selection for a longer time...
That would make humans the lest evolved animal on the planet as we're just about the most recently-developed species.
I just think there's a danger using the term in any way, because it only ends up being misleading, and worse, it encourages the idea of goal-based evolution.
It always "works"... but the organism either survives and reproduces or it dosen't...
That's why I specified "works out". Indeed, evolution "works" every time - just that some of the evolved forms end up being failures.
just for the record, i'll just give a rundown on the portion of his recent post that relates to my quotes. Just as background, I have not been trying to attack evolution, I'm a big fan. I am focussed on cases where I just have seen plenty of interesting points and opportunities for clarification and education missed, due to the style of discussion.
He quotes me 7 times, and here are my comments on his comments.
1) This is fine, I don't understand it, but it just looks like joking.
2) I think 'maybe' is generous.
3) I didn't need the answer, and didn't need the 'nope'. Here, the comment is throwing an easy 'nope' at a hypothetical question, and completely ignoring the substance of the criticism.
4) Another nice explanation about the pretty basic idea that evolution proceeds via random mutation over very long periods of time, with some mutations being beneficial and thus leading to change in the species. The phrase 'more evolved' is a common one (and a mistake, when moving beyond lay speech and into a more serious discussion of evolution--point taken AGAIN!), but in this case it is VERY clear in the original post by JBI that he was referring to a species that comes into existence later in a particular chain of development (specifically, he was talking about humans in relation to our primate ancestor species). It would have been so much better (and would still) if another phrase or term could have been suggested to describe this relationship. "Better adapted" maybe? Something that reflects the improved fitness that has resulted from evolution.
5) theAtheist suggests something that isn't in the original post. I do not suggest that species go extinct in the light of challenges that they know they are facing. The mutations are random, of course. But extinct species are not evidence of the randomness, just evidence that sufficiently beneficial mutations didn't occur. The question of "random or not?" is left aside in the extinct species argument (it could have--hypothetically!--been the case that the 'striving' species failed to mutate/change appropriately, and therefore became extinct). (By the way, I DO DO DO understand that the mutations are random. Does that help?)
Here's the fallacy:
i) A-->B
ii) B
iii) therefore, A.
where A='mutations are random' and B='some species go extinct'.
If anyone is tired of seeing so much typing about the same point again and again, just look at the quote and comment, and you'll see why I feel the same. theAtheist had originally suggested that extinct species are a refutation of constant improvement (e.g. non-random mutation).
6) I don't understand this. I think it might be an oblique reference to the suggestion that an unsurprising lack of evidence for transitional species strengthens the case for evolution (7), but maybe it's something else.
7) I like this, because it expands on the subtlety you were reaching for when you chose the extremely controversial :) 'strength'.
Anyhow, I think one thing that's becoming clear is that there's a need for more clarity. Also, a bit of patience in diagnosing where misunderstandings lie, less of a reflex for the easy score, and an appreciation of an argument beyond pesky misunderstandings that might be staining its surface. Or we'll just keep getting the same stumbles, ambushes, and evasions, as the real questions and answers disappear in the distance of quotes about quotes about quotes.
This thread reminded me of a film called idiocracy In this film dumb people have way more children than intelligent people. This scenario with dumb people breeding excessively and intelligent people dying out eventually leads to a society that borders on the brink of a total breakdown where people are generally stupid. I found this a splendid example of evolution, where a mutation didn't quite work out for the species. The film doesn't let it go that far, and an average Joe from the present goes and saves the future. In this scenario, evolution didn't quite work out for humans, as they were on the brink of extinction in the scenario, it is only thanks to the rules of Hollywood film making that the scenario had a specific plot that resolved the issue and humanity had a second chance to continue on their evolutionary path to the next extinction.
The Atheist I agree with you. If in whatever way there ever was truth in the scenario described above, you know what to do.
Muhahaha! It has Electrolytes....
It would be very helpful if you could quote the bits you're responding to, but I'll do my best:Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Not entirely joking - I have one my best friends call me a pimp all the time. A recruiter, or head-hunter, is just finding the person most likely to result in a fee, so the analogy is reasonably apt. An HR practitioner will be more likely to be a mediator type who is indeed empathic. RTecruiters do faux empathy, but only where there's a dollar in it. Think used car salesman selling people to the highest bidder - that's my industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
:lol:
Hell, I'm a generous bloke.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I was trying to show that I don't see any substance in the comment. I don't how else to say there is no "more evolved".Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I don't see better adapted working either, because it requires a qualitative assessment on no data. Who's better adapted today might well change tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
It all comes back to valuing one form of life over another from an evolutionary perspective, which I don't believe can be done. Obviously, I value human life more than trees and I value my kids' lives above those of others, but they're subjective analyses which have no place in science.
Bingo.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Just reiterating that evidence of transitional species exists. Why there's so little is explained elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Goodo!Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I'm not going for scores - it's just my style, which can take some getting used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I'm not so sure that's fiction!Quote:
Originally Posted by AimusSage
I've always liked Carl Sagan's take on the 20th century and beyond:
Quote:
We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AimusSage
wow. you did it again. some of these would take a little digging to see the evasion, but people wouldn't have to dig far to see that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm not even going to respond - this tedious form of breaking things up into individual, often elided sentences is terrible - not to mention the fact that things are responded too in much the same fashion. Until a coherent argument can be formed in paragraphs, quite simply any form of dialog cannot exist. you can't quote quotes here, so the text block ultimately becomes too layered to respond, unless people write in paragraphs, which facilitate responses and thinking, rather than broken up snippets of deliberate context-manipulation.
I dunno. I like to keep things simple. Evolution is quite simply, change. The most fundamental law of everything in the universe is change. That law holds true as it is an absolute law. Evolution logically follows, since a species can't remain eternally unchanging, as that would break the absolute law that all is change. Simple, right?
By the by, I don't have the slightest clue what JBI and Atheist could be arguing about! :lol:
Dear Andave, evolution is not contrary to God! Not at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Just consider - if we are evolved from apes - what is the future evolutionary step? It is a being as more greatly advanced than we are, as we are than animals. There are different steps in the evolution of consciousness; matter (the physical), subtle, mental, and spiritual, or supramental. Physical science knows nothing of the supramental, and I daresay that certain members would disagree with me about this. I believe in evolution, but I also believe that there is a divine life which is possible to work towards and manifest. Divine consciousness is something we do not have much association with in normal, daily life. It is as far beyond us as crossing the oceans, building cities, civilizations, and empires; with laws, reason, morals, mathematics, advanced language, and art - as all of these are - to the animals.
From India there have been more than several thinkers who believed that evolution was being guided by the divine, or being guided toward a divine life. Human life is not the highest intelligence. We are but a part of the universe, which is much greater than us. We are a part of the whole. Evolution simply means change. Humans are not the highest step in evolution, therefore not the highest intelligence. The highest intelligence is God. You may agree with this, and I may agree with you if you hold this. But I am not Christian, or any other religion. All religions are valid paths. But religion is not the goal, it is only part of the path.
billl,
If I may be so bold ... Please do consider using the quote function provided in the software that this site utilizes more often. There may be a thread somewhere which explains this function, but briefly it is something like this:
[quotes=billl] Text included here [/quote]
In the above example, simply remove the "s" from the initial word "quotes," and you will end up with the following:
I think that this would greatly increase the clarity of your posts, the quality of your exchanges, and comprehension by both your interlocutors and idle readers.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I bring it up only because I think that these kinds of threads are important, and that exchange and discussion on this issue is badly needed here and elsewhere.
JBI, I for one would appreciate your continued participation, for the same reasons mentioned above.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
As an aside, I think that you can quote quotes here:
{PersonBeta responds here}Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonAlpha
I don't get this at all - I was agreeing with how you saw what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
If I've read you wrong, I'm happy to respond.