Evolution

[Stargazer86]

Not arguing either way but how, does that work. God is omnipetant and a maker, eeven with evolutionary theory Humans didnt create themselves, they are a product of a greater force, perhaps random chance p[erhaps evoloution itself. if evoloution creates any 'false gods' then as I see it it follows it would be Nature, Evoloution itself, random chcnae or Chaous that becomes the controlling feature and thus by that argument God.

me I tend to stand wiith evoloution is a feature or by product of Creation or even the Tool of Creation, Ive never seen why God and evoloution can't co-exsist.
I mean the humans evolved from mud thing? wasn't Adam made of dirt or dust?

Bingo.

[The Atheist]

Why isn't it that big a jump? Define "big." Did life happen by an accidental mutation?

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.

Then how did...brains come into existence, because life doesn't necessarily mean intelligence?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

Incorrect.

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.

Furthermore, why don't scientists everywhere unanimously embrace evolution theory? Why do they find things that disprove it?

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.

There is not a single piece of published data which refutes evolution.

Insects? why insects? Aren't they lower on the food chain/evolutionary process?

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.

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."

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.

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 lib, evolution makes man god, which is NEVER good!

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.

[JBI]

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.

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.

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.



And that's just the kind of misconception which abounds and which creates the opportunity for misinformation.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

No fallacy.

You are the one who said we are at the top, ....

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.

...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.

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.

You are assuming a morality on it, to try to disvalue the progressive element, ...

What?

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.

...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.

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.

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[billl]

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.

[Nightshade]

Ok people, I bet more than half of you can already guess what I am going to say :
BREATHE,
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.


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.

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".

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.

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.

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.
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?

You seem to be stuck on the incorrect idea that evolution is goal-based. That it isn't is entirely demonstrable 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.

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.
And do me a favour and keep it fairly simple and straight forwards so I can follow?

[NikolaiI]

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.

[andave_ya]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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?"

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Why isn't it universal? Shouldn't it be?

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!

And I am to ignore the furious debate raging over each and every single one of these "transitional creatures?"

Duly sought after, and still not found, but then, human nature being so flawed as it is...

Not having all the data is a strength, not a weakness.

Oh I see.

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.

Thank you for speaking for all of us

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.

So despite being smash-able, they're the "fittest?"

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.

Why not? Why don't they 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.

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.

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.

We're not more evolved than an amoeba? I won't insult you by listing the differences...

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?

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.

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.
And do me a favour and keep it fairly simple and straight forwards so I can follow?

ditto, please.

[JCamilo]

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.

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.

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?

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.

So despite being smash-able, they're the "fittest?"

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.

Why not? Why don't they do it?

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.

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.

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?

We're not more evolved than an amoeba? I won't insult you by listing the differences...

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".
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.

[AimusSage]

This thread is amazing! Who wants a Darwin award?

[The Atheist]

Take it easy Atheist! A little more empathy might help in the recruitment.

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.

I don't see how JBI made the mistake you're suggesting.

Maybe I read it wrong, but he'll no doubt let me know if so.

Is being at the top of the food chain related to evolution?

Nope. Ask a t rex. They were at the top of the food chain for a very long time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We agree that there's plenty of evidence, so that's good.

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."

I see what you're saying, but I'll stick with strength, for the following reasons:

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 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.

I won't argue that intelligence exists, but whether it's of value is highly arguable.

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.

Surly evolution? Is that how men become grumpy old farts?



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.

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?

There is no cook, no mixture, no timing, no "done". Mutations happen; successful ones may become a new species, the others die.

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.

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.
And do me a favour and keep it fairly simple and straight forwards so I can follow?

Well, there is no difference, because there is no such thing as goal-based evolution.

Evolution happens. It either works out or doesn't.

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.

Nope.

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.

...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?"

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.

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?

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!

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?

As I look around me, that appears to be the case!

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.

Why isn't it universal? Shouldn't it be?

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.

And I am to ignore the furious debate raging over each and every single one of these "transitional creatures?"

No! You should enjoy and embrace it.

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.

Duly sought after, and still not found, but then, human nature being so flawed as it is...

I'd really like you to try to get this one part into perspective.

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.

Oh I see.

I'm hoping my rationale for that, because it really is.

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.

Thank you for speaking for all of us

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.

So despite being smash-able, they're the "fittest?"

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.

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.

Why not? Why don't they do it?

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!

We're not more evolved than an amoeba? I won't insult you by listing the differences...

You don't need to list differences, because they're irrelevant.

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.

ditto, please.

Are we getting there?

[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.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Flowering plants appeared after mammals, does that make them "higher" than mammals?

Of course it doesn't. That's just a straw man argument, as I'm sure you know.

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.

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.

This thread has gotten contentious and somewhat off topic, but Camilo has hit the nail on the head.

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.

[The Atheist]

Of course it doesn't. That's just a straw man argument, as I'm sure you know.

Absolutely!

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.

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!