-
Negative arguments against intelligentdesign:
Bad design, such as the circuitous path followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, perfectly explainable if evolution is assumed: it can be traced to the innervation of gills in fish, so goes back a long way to our piscine ancestors.
The fact that the eye is wired up wrong way round, the nerves running across the surface of the retina before plunging through a hole - the blind spot.
The fact that the nerves of the central nervous system below the brain are encased in the vertebrae of the spine, meaning that a fracture or dislocation of the spine leads to paralysis, usually permanent. If those nerves were disributed trough the soft tissue of our torsos, a broken back would be no more serious than a broken leg.
No-one has yet come up with an example of irreducible complexity, despite the best efforts of creationists: Michael Behe's nomination of the rotary flegellum on certain bacteria has been pretty comprehensively debunked by evolutionary scientists, and the mammalian eye, an early candidate, was long ago shown to have evolved - and each major step in the evolution still exists on various creatures.
Positive arguments for evolution:
Junk DNA, left over from our distant ancestors.
radiometric and other forms of dating, giving a very great age for the earth.
Vestigial and atavistic features such as human tails and whale rear legs, and appendices.
Transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx lithographica and Tiktaalik roseae, and many others.
Evolution visible in the fossil record, especially whales and horses, where certain characteristic features are carried through, indicating the succession. Another excellent example is the evolution of the reptilian multi-boned jaw into the mammalian inner ear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles
Evolution satisfies the criteria of a good scientific theory: it has been confirmed by later discoveries (genetics), and it makes accurate predictions (e.g. that a creature like what became known as Tiktaalik roseae would be found, and even in what part of the world).
-
A plea - could we keep this as a serious debate, and curb the usual sarcasm?
-
A plea - could we keep this as a serious debate, and curb the usual sarcasm?
I agree with your post, but would just change the true, to most likely true.
We are always open to new evidence, and follow where it leads.
I think we are as certain that evolution by natural selection is probably true, in the same way that we think the e licence suggests that the Earth orbits the Sun.
-
A plea - could we keep this as a serious debate, and curb the usual sarcasm?
er? no !
-
Do you mean, "Why I think evolution is true"?
Facts such as the earth being a sphere and orbiting the sun can be observed.
Evolution from simple to complex has not been observed. We do observe life forms at the bottom of the geological column that were no less complex than today's (the eye of a Trilobite being a good example).
We are often told that two different families arose from an extinct common ancestor. Frequently though, the "story of evolution" has to be re-written because fossils keep being found that are as low down in the geological column than their supposed ancestors. So again, evolution is not observed.
Stasis in the fossil record is observed.
The formation of the geological column itself was not observed - not over millions of years, at least. If you believe in these long ages you also have to explain gaps of up to a billion years between consecutive layers that look they were laid down a few days apart, such as this one in Black Canyon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rwolf/5137667115
We have however observed evidence for extremely rapid deposition of sediments, such as at Spirit Lake, Mount St. Helens. Also in experimental work done in flume tanks as shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnzHU9VsliQ
If evolution is true then I'm a potato.
-
Do you mean, "Why I think evolution is true"?
Facts such as the earth being a sphere and orbiting the sun can be observed.
Evolution from simple to complex has not been observed. We do observe life forms at the bottom of the geological column that were no less complex than today's (the eye of a Trilobite being a good example).
We are often told that two different families arose from an extinct common ancestor. Frequently though, the "story of evolution" has to be re-written because fossils keep being found that are as low down in the geological column than their supposed ancestors. So again, evolution is not observed.
Stasis in the fossil record is observed.
The formation of the geological column itself was not observed - not over millions of years, at least. If you believe in these long ages you also have to explain gaps of up to a billion years between consecutive layers that look they were laid down a few days apart, such as this one in Black Canyon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rwolf/5137667115
We have however observed evidence for extremely rapid deposition of sediments, such as at Spirit Lake, Mount St. Helens. Also in experimental work done in flume tanks as shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnzHU9VsliQ
If evolution is true then I'm a potato.
Then you are well named, Spud.
-
Trilobites had various kinds of multi-lensed eye, like insects. Eyes seem to have evolved during the Cambrian explosion, which is well before their time, so I fail to see how that is evidence against evolution.
Are you a young-earth creationist, or an old-earth one? Do you believe in the historicity of the Adam and Eve and flood stories?
-
Trilobites had various kinds of multi-lensed eye, like insects. Eyes seem to have evolved during the Cambrian explosion, which is well before their time, so I fail to see how that is evidence against evolution.
Are you a young-earth creationist, or an old-earth one? Do you believe in the historicity of the Adam and Eve and flood stories?
-
oops ! something went wrong there .
Ill take a guess and say he does .
-
Negative arguments against intelligentdesign:
Bad design, such as the circuitous path followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, perfectly explainable if evolution is assumed: it can be traced to the innervation of gills in fish, so goes back a long way to our piscine ancestors.
The fact that the eye is wired up wrong way round, the nerves running across the surface of the retina before plunging through a hole - the blind spot.
The fact that the nerves of the central nervous system below the brain are encased in the vertebrae of the spine, meaning that a fracture or dislocation of the spine leads to paralysis, usually permanent. If those nerves were disributed trough the soft tissue of our torsos, a broken back would be no more serious than a broken leg.
No-one has yet come up with an example of irreducible complexity, despite the best efforts of creationists: Michael Behe's nomination of the rotary flegellum on certain bacteria has been pretty comprehensively debunked by evolutionary scientists, and the mammalian eye, an early candidate, was long ago shown to have evolved - and each major step in the evolution still exists on various creatures.
Positive arguments for evolution:
Junk DNA, left over from our distant ancestors.
radiometric and other forms of dating, giving a very great age for the earth.
Vestigial and atavistic features such as human tails and whale rear legs, and appendices.
Transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx lithographica and Tiktaalik roseae, and many others.
Evolution visible in the fossil record, especially whales and horses, where certain characteristic features are carried through, indicating the succession. Another excellent example is the evolution of the reptilian multi-boned jaw into the mammalian inner ear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles
Evolution satisfies the criteria of a good scientific theory: it has been confirmed by later discoveries (genetics), and it makes accurate predictions (e.g. that a creature like what became known as Tiktaalik roseae would be found, and even in what part of the world).
Why do you think Intelligent Design and Evolution are mutually exclusive?
All man made products like cars, planes, computers etc. etc. evolve over time and they are also products of Intelligent Design.
-
Do you mean, "Why I think evolution is true"?
Facts such as the earth being a sphere and orbiting the sun can be observed.
Evolution from simple to complex has not been observed. We do observe life forms at the bottom of the geological column that were no less complex than today's (the eye of a Trilobite being a good example).
We are often told that two different families arose from an extinct common ancestor. Frequently though, the "story of evolution" has to be re-written because fossils keep being found that are as low down in the geological column than their supposed ancestors. So again, evolution is not observed.
Stasis in the fossil record is observed.
The formation of the geological column itself was not observed - not over millions of years, at least. If you believe in these long ages you also have to explain gaps of up to a billion years between consecutive layers that look they were laid down a few days apart, such as this one in Black Canyon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rwolf/5137667115
We have however observed evidence for extremely rapid deposition of sediments, such as at Spirit Lake, Mount St. Helens. Also in experimental work done in flume tanks as shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnzHU9VsliQ
If evolution is true then I'm a potato.
That's absurd. Europeans have got white skin. Is that because some capricious god just thought it looked better and intervened ? Or was it because of natural processes ? If you deny evolution, then you deny Nature.
-
Why do you think Intelligent Design and Evolution are mutually exclusive?
All man made products like cars, planes, computers etc. etc. evolve over time and they are also products of Intelligent Design.
But the intelligence of car designers and computer programmers is something that evolved. Did Homo Erectus put satellites into orbit ?
-
But the intelligence of car designers and computer programmers is something that evolved. Did Homo Erectus put satellites into orbit ?
This intelligence may be at the expense of some other capability, such as running speed. That's absurd. Europeans have got white skin. Is that because some capricious god just thought it looked better and intervened ? Or was it because of natural processes ? If you deny evolution, then you deny Nature.
I'm not denying adaptation but evolution from simple to complex.
White men can't jump.
-
Evolution from simple to complex has not been observed. We do observe life forms at the bottom of the geological column that were no less complex than today's (the eye of a Trilobite being a good example).
Trilobites are a long way from the bottom of the geological column. The lived from around 600 mya until around 300 mya. Furthermore, their evolution from simpler forms to more complex forms over those 300 million years is well documented. Not that evolution always has to be from simple to complex. For example, snakes have fairly obviously evolved to lose their legs.
I recommend you read Trilobite! by Richard Fortey.
-
But the intelligence of car designers and computer programmers is something that evolved. Did Homo Erectus put satellites into orbit ?
You are missing the point torridon...
Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation. Evolution on the other hand is associated with chance factors.
I am only pointing out that this need not be so. We have innumerable examples of man made products that have evolved over the decades and centuries...and which still have design flaws... but which are nevertheless based on intelligent design.
So...evolution and design flaws do not automatically rule out Intelligent Design. Evolution is a form of creation in stages.
-
You are missing the point torridon...
Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation. Evolution on the other hand is associated with chance factors.
I am only pointing out that this need not be so. We have innumerable examples of man made products that have evolved over the decades and centuries...and which still have design flaws... but which are nevertheless based on intelligent design.
So...evolution and design flaws do not automatically rule out Intelligent Design. Evolution is a form of creation in stages.
You seem to be confusing life creation with evolution.
The point about Darwinian evolution is that it involves natural processes without need or recourse to any external intervention.
Man made products have been modified(not 'have evolved') by necessary external intervention.
If you are talking about life creation however, then the subject is abiogenesis, not evolution.
We do not yet know how life began'
We do know how man made products were created.
-
You are missing the point torridon...
Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation. Evolution on the other hand is associated with chance factors.
I am only pointing out that this need not be so. We have innumerable examples of man made products that have evolved over the decades and centuries...and which still have design flaws... but which are nevertheless based on intelligent design.
So...evolution and design flaws do not automatically rule out Intelligent Design. Evolution is a form of creation in stages.
If Evolution is intelligently lead, why do species become extinct?
Evolution by Natural Selection explains what we observe regarding changes in life forms on this planet, ID doesn't.
-
This intelligence may be at the expense of some other capability, such as running speed. I'm not denying adaptation but evolution from simple to complex.
White men can't jump.
Eh ? Most people would consider homo sapiens more complex than Australopithecus afarensis. Most people would consider multicellular organisms more complex than single cell ones. Most people would consider vertebrates with internal organs more complex than the simple multicellular organisms that came before. Most people would consider eukaryotes more complex than the archaea that preceded them. How is this not a progression from simple to complex over time ?
-
If Evolution is intelligently lead, why do species become extinct?
Evolution by Natural Selection explains what we observe regarding changes in life forms on this planet, ID doesn't.
Even in man made products there are redundancies and many models get rejected and dumped. Happens all the time. Does not mean there is no intelligent design.
'Chance' can 'explain' away anything!
-
You are missing the point torridon...
Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation. Evolution on the other hand is associated with chance factors.
I am only pointing out that this need not be so. We have innumerable examples of man made products that have evolved over the decades and centuries...and which still have design flaws... but which are nevertheless based on intelligent design.
So...evolution and design flaws do not automatically rule out Intelligent Design. Evolution is a form of creation in stages.
It is flawed thinking to put intelligent design and evolution side by side as if there was some equivalence. They are not equivalent. What the evidence has taught us, is that intelligence is an outcome of evolution, and therefore cannot be considered a rival concept on a like for like basis. Evolution is fundamental; intelligent design is not, it is derivative.
-
Even in man made products there are redundancies and many models get rejected and dumped. Happens all the time. Does not mean there is no intelligent design.
So the Intelligent Designer is no more intelligent than humans?
'Chance' can 'explain' away anything!
Natural Selection, not chance.
-
So the Intelligent Designer is no more intelligent than humans?
I think that you will have to appreciate that Sriram is coming from a different background as indicated by his comment 'Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation.' As far as I can recall, a number of Hindu schools of thought see intelligence as a property fairly close to that word's original meaning (interlegere) .. to choose between. The creative process is flexible rather than associated with a divine design template. The creative process is seen more as an interplay of three 'forces' .... rajas, which might be seen as energy, tamas which might be seen as mass or a formative force, and sattwa (intelligence) an intervening force which attempts to create harmony by using rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas. Rajas has a tendency towards dissipation and tamas towards inertia. Sattwa preserves the harmony between the two.
-
I think that you will have to appreciate that Sriram is coming from a different background as indicated by his comment 'Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation.' As far as I can recall, a number of Hindu schools of thought see intelligence as a property fairly close to that word's original meaning (interlegere) .. to choose between. The creative process is flexible rather than associated with a divine design template. The creative process is seen more as an interplay of three 'forces' .... rajas, which might be seen as energy, tamas which might be seen as mass or a formative force, and sattwa (intelligence) an intervening force which attempts to create harmony by using rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas. Rajas has a tendency towards dissipation and tamas towards inertia. Sattwa preserves the harmony between the two.
Thanks. Shows how creativevthe human imagination can be.
-
It is flawed thinking to put intelligent design and evolution side by side as if there was some equivalence. They are not equivalent. What the evidence has taught us, is that intelligence is an outcome of evolution, and therefore cannot be considered a rival concept on a like for like basis. Evolution is fundamental; intelligent design is not, it is derivative.
What do you mean 'no equivalence'. Who claimed any equivalence?
I am just saying that there are enough examples of evolution happening through intelligent intervention. So, in principle they are not mutually exclusive. Evolution can be driven by intelligence. That is all.
-
So the Intelligent Designer is no more intelligent than humans?
Natural Selection, not chance.
Maybe!
Environmental changes are chance and so NS is chance.
-
I am just saying that there are enough examples of evolution happening through intelligent intervention.
Could you give a couple of examples please?
-
Maybe!
Environmental changes are chance and so NS is chance.
No.
The mutations are random, the selection is not.
-
I think that you will have to appreciate that Sriram is coming from a different background as indicated by his comment 'Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation.' As far as I can recall, a number of Hindu schools of thought see intelligence as a property fairly close to that word's original meaning (interlegere) .. to choose between. The creative process is flexible rather than associated with a divine design template. The creative process is seen more as an interplay of three 'forces' .... rajas, which might be seen as energy, tamas which might be seen as mass or a formative force, and sattwa (intelligence) an intervening force which attempts to create harmony by using rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas. Rajas has a tendency towards dissipation and tamas towards inertia. Sattwa preserves the harmony between the two.
No problem. But if you are going to introduce evolution into such thinking, then the least you can do is acknowledge and understand the scientific basis for the theory. I have no problem with such thinking as you describe, if that is what one wishes to believe, but as far as I can see there is no evidence for any intelligent intervening force, except perhaps for the intelligence that evolution has itself created, as Torri(post 19) has ably decribed.
-
Eh ? Most people would consider homo sapiens more complex than Australopithecus afarensis. Most people would consider multicellular organisms more complex than single cell ones. Most people would consider vertebrates with internal organs more complex than the simple multicellular organisms that came before. Most people would consider eukaryotes more complex than the archaea that preceded them. How is this not a progression from simple to complex over time ?
A grasshopper can leap the equivalent of something like 300 feet for humans. So I'm not sure that greater size or apparent complexity does imply actual complexity. Whenever we observe an increase in capability, it is always at the expense of another capability. You have also claimed that A .Aferensis was a human ancestor in order to support your point about increasing complexity. All the evidence I have seen suggests it wasn't.
-
All the evidence I have seen suggests it wasn't.
Have you seen any evidence that suggests some connection between modern humans and any suggested ancestors?
-
A grasshopper can leap the equivalent of something like 300 feet for humans. So I'm not sure that greater size or apparent complexity does imply actual complexity. Whenever we observe an increase in capability, it is always at the expense of another capability. You have also claimed that A .Aferensis was a human ancestor in order to support your point about increasing complexity. All the evidence I have seen suggests it wasn't.
Put these brains into ascending complexity order : pygmy shrew, lemur, chimpanzee, insurance salesman
-
No problem. But if you are going to introduce evolution into such thinking, then the least you can do is acknowledge and understand the scientific basis for the theory. I have no problem with such thinking as you describe, if that is what one wishes to believe, but as far as I can see there is no evidence for any intelligent intervening force, except perhaps for the intelligence that evolution has itself created, as Torri(post 19) has ably decribed.
Perhaps somebody could layout how evolution created intelligence rather than the other way round, so as to put that element of the discussion to bed.
-
Evolution can be driven by intelligence. That is all.
Can you think of any examples where the intelligence was not human intelligence?
-
We can see that human intelligence has created computers....which have evolved over the decades....and become intelligent too (robots, AI).
In other words...Intelligence creates things that evolve and become intelligent.
Look familiar doesn't it?
Biological organisms also evolve and become intelligent. Stands to reason that there is some form of Intelligence responsible for it. The pattern repeats.
Problem arises only if you try to fit in mythological versions of Intelligence into the picture.
-
Perhaps somebody could layout how evolution created intelligence rather than the other way round, so as to put that element of the discussion to bed.
Intelligence is a high order outcome of increasing complexity over time. First there was undifferentiated plasma, then after a few hundred million years plasma transformed into atomic matter, which went on to form into molecular matter, of which carbon in particular grew into increasingly complex long chain compounds which led inevitably to self replication which led to cellular organisms which led to multicellular organisms which led to vertebrate organisms with through gut, internal organs and bilateral symmetry which led to mammals and primates and great apes and eventually intelligent designers. The best evidence we have is that it takes 14 billion years for intelligence to arise; once arisen it can, recursively create further intelligence of course, but it cannot spontaneously arise out of nowhere or arise quickly. The apparent lack of intelligent life, or indeed any life at all anywhere else in the universe surely is testament to the rarity and complexity of intelligence. It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations. Evolution is an inevitable, fundamental process. Intelligent design is one of its extremely rarefied products
-
Intelligence is a high order outcome of increasing complexity over time. First there was undifferentiated plasma, then after a few hundred million years plasma transformed into atomic matter, which went on to form into molecular matter, of which carbon in particular grew into increasingly complex long chain compounds which led inevitably to self replication which led to cellular organisms which led to multicellular organisms which led to vertebrate organisms with through gut, internal organs and bilateral symmetry which led to mammals and primates and great apes and eventually intelligent designers. The best evidence we have is that it takes 14 billion years for intelligence to arise; once arisen it can, recursively create further intelligence of course, but it cannot spontaneously arise out of nowhere or arise quickly. The apparent lack of intelligent life, or indeed any life at all anywhere else in the universe surely is testament to the rarity and complexity of intelligence. It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations. Evolution is an inevitable, fundamental process. Intelligent design is one of its extremely rarefied products
Your quote..."It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations."
What?? Is that what you have understood from what I have said in so many posts?
-
Your quote..."It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations."
What?? Is that what you have understood from what I have said in so many posts?
Your prev post - Biological organisms also evolve and become intelligent. Stands to reason that there is some form of Intelligence responsible for it.
Being responsible for implies a precedence of intelligence over evolution. That's circular, or back to front, rather like saying "the son begat his father"
-
Intelligence is a high order outcome of increasing complexity over time. First there was undifferentiated plasma, then after a few hundred million years plasma transformed into atomic matter, which went on to form into molecular matter, of which carbon in particular grew into increasingly complex long chain compounds which led inevitably to self replication which led to cellular organisms which led to multicellular organisms which led to vertebrate organisms with through gut, internal organs and bilateral symmetry which led to mammals and primates and great apes and eventually intelligent designers. The best evidence we have is that it takes 14 billion years for intelligence to arise; once arisen it can, recursively create further intelligence of course, but it cannot spontaneously arise out of nowhere or arise quickly. The apparent lack of intelligent life, or indeed any life at all anywhere else in the universe surely is testament to the rarity and complexity of intelligence. It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations. Evolution is an inevitable, fundamental process. Intelligent design is one of its extremely rarefied products
OK, that seems a good starting point. Perhaps we could ignore 'design'and 'designer' as it implies working out in advance and just use the word 'intelligence'. It would now be helpful if you defined intelligence in the context of your post and also 'undifferentiated plasma' and what caused it to 'transform'.
-
OK, that seems a good starting point. Perhaps we could ignore 'design'and 'designer' as it implies working out in advance and just use the word 'intelligence'. It would now be helpful if you defined intelligence in the context of your post and also 'undifferentiated plasma' and what caused it to 'transform'.
Atomic matter formed after a period of cosmic cooling and expansion; after 380,000 years temperature and density conditions became right such that previously free floating electrons became trapped into orbits around proton/neutron nuclei and at a stroke we had the beginnings of the periodic table, a more complex catalogue of matter than that which preceded it. Now complexity builds up over periods of cosmic time until we have a full periodic table leading to biology eventually. All events in the universe can be viewed as interactions between matter and forces taking place at varying levels of complexity. An encounter between hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms resulting in water is at a low end of a scale of complexity; an intelligent choice over which fixed interest instrument to invest in, is also ultimately a matter interaction taking place at a level of complex systems biology. Intelligence implies an already existing hugely complex context for any concept of intelligence to have any meaning.
-
We can see that human intelligence has created computers....which have evolved over the decades....and become intelligent too (robots, AI).
Don't buy the hype. There are no truly intelligent robots or computers yet.
Biological organisms also evolve and become intelligent. Stands to reason that there is some form of Intelligence responsible for it.
No it doesn't.
So your answer to my question is no.
-
Atomic matter formed after a period of cosmic cooling and expansion; after 380,000 years temperature and density conditions became right such that previously free floating electrons became trapped into orbits around proton/neutron nuclei and at a stroke we had the beginnings of the periodic table, a more complex catalogue of matter than that which preceded it. Now complexity builds up over periods of cosmic time until we have a full periodic table leading to biology eventually. All events in the universe can be viewed as interactions between matter and forces taking place at varying levels of complexity. An encounter between hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms resulting in water is at a low end of a scale of complexity; an intelligent choice over which fixed interest instrument to invest in, is also ultimately a matter interaction taking place at a level of complex systems biology. Intelligence implies an already existing hugely complex context for any concept of intelligence to have any meaning.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you have written but it seems like you are saying that there is no such thing as 'intelligence', just action reaction processes which get more and more complex over time. Presumably the same could be said of 'life' and 'consciousness' and we are all just dead matter rolling about like pebbles on the sea shore driven by a tide of becoming.
-
We can see that human intelligence has created computers....which have evolved over the decades....and become intelligent too (robots, AI).
In other words...Intelligence creates things that evolve and become intelligent.
Look familiar doesn't it?
Biological organisms also evolve and become intelligent. Stands to reason that there is some form of Intelligence responsible for it. The pattern repeats.
Problem arises only if you try to fit in mythological versions of Intelligence into the picture.
Human artefacts do not evolve in the same sense. There is an intelligence - ours - driving their evolution. Biological evolution is not directed by any intelligence, as is evidenced by the many examples of bad design, if you assume a designer, already mentioned.
-
Human artefacts do not evolve in the same sense. There is an intelligence - ours - driving their evolution. Biological evolution is not directed by any intelligence, as is evidenced by the many examples of bad design, if you assume a designer, already mentioned.
The OP assumes that if evolution is proved to be correct, then it automatically rejects Intelligent Design. I am arguing that this need not be true.
The evidence for this being human products that evolve and become more complex over time but are nevertheless created by Intelligent Design. There are many flaws in human products.
This is true of also hybrid animals and plants that we humans artificially create.
Evolution or flaws need not be incompatible with Intelligent design.
That is all my argument is about.
-
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you have written but it seems like you are saying that there is no such thing as 'intelligence', just action reaction processes which get more and more complex over time. Presumably the same could be said of 'life' and 'consciousness' and we are all just dead matter rolling about like pebbles on the sea shore driven by a tide of becoming.
Yes, something like that. That last phrase was rather beautiful. If we step back to glimpse a bigger picture, then whether matter is dead or not starts to lose its meaning; there is just matter and energy, space and time, and if we dive deeper down into quantum theory then even matter, space and time evaporate - these things become emergent outcomes of events in a quantum field where there is no space or distance or time or matter; all there are is events, interactions. So I think we could model all phenomena ultimately in terms of interactions of varying degrees of complexity at varying levels of emergence. How does intelligence fit into this ? Well it's hard to define intelligence in the first place, something along the lines of the skill level with which complex webs of relationships can be modelled, but whatever, it is a phenomenon that sits at the high end of the spectrum of complexity and emergence and it makes no sense to talk of intelligence as something fundamental, contextless, some sort of a-priori first cause. Intelligence is something that emerges in a richly complex context as a facet of life in its opposition to the entropy gradient.
-
Yes, something like that. That last phrase was rather beautiful. If we step back to glimpse a bigger picture, then whether matter is dead or not starts to lose its meaning; there is just matter and energy, space and time, and if we dive deeper down into quantum theory then even matter, space and time evaporate - these things become emergent outcomes of events in a quantum field where there is no space or distance or time or matter; all there are is events, interactions. So I think we could model all phenomena ultimately in terms of interactions of varying degrees of complexity at varying levels of emergence. How does intelligence fit into this ? Well it's hard to define intelligence in the first place, something along the lines of the skill level with which complex webs of relationships can be modelled, but whatever, it is a phenomenon that sits at the high end of the spectrum of complexity and emergence and it makes no sense to talk of intelligence as something fundamental, contextless, some sort of a-priori first cause. Intelligence is something that emerges in a richly complex context as a facet of life in its opposition to the entropy gradient.
OK, well I'll try to contrast that scientific theory with the 2500 year old metaphysical speculation from India as I recall it (and so could be a suspect interpretation). Instead of a quantum field, there is what's called Prakriti a kind of primal infinite potential with the three innate qualities I mentioned previously. It is the interplay of those simple qualities which give rise to the complexity of all the changing forms and forces in the universe. Sattwa or Intelligence is one of those simple qualities which modulates the other two and is more evident or present in life forms e.g. homeostasis and metabolism would be examples of its presence at an organic level and rationalisation at a mental level. A pebble on the sea shore would have little if any intelligence and its tamasic form would be at the mercy of the rajasic forces of wind and waves. I suppose you could say that Sattwic intelligence is an emergent property but of the primal Prakriti not from the increasing complexity of life forms.
-
OK, well I'll try to contrast that scientific theory with the 2500 year old metaphysical speculation from India as I recall it (and so could be a suspect interpretation). Instead of a quantum field, there is what's called Prakriti a kind of primal infinite potential with the three innate qualities I mentioned previously. It is the interplay of those simple qualities which give rise to the complexity of all the changing forms and forces in the universe. Sattwa or Intelligence is one of those simple qualities which modulates the other two and is more evident or present in life forms e.g. homeostasis and metabolism would be examples of its presence at an organic level and rationalisation at a mental level. A pebble on the sea shore would have little if any intelligence and its tamasic form would be at the mercy of the rajasic forces of wind and waves. I suppose you could say that Sattwic intelligence is an emergent property but of the primal Prakriti not from the increasing complexity of life forms.
Actually ekim...all this Indian philosophy is not likely to have any impact in this forum. I have tried it over nearly 20 years. Explaining the nature of the Intelligence that drives Nature is a very complex thing. Nature (Prakriti) itself is intelligent and human intelligence is only one derivative of it.
I am trying to explain a very simple phenomenon....that of artificial selection and technological evolution....in which evolution is driven by intelligence...and this is not being understood. They still maintain that evolution and Intelligence are incompatible....and that Intelligence cannot precede evolution.
Darwin himself came up with Natural Selection only after he observed Artificial Selection.
-
As Rudyard Kipling said: 'OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet' but he did make exceedingly good cakes. ;)
-
OK, well I'll try to contrast that scientific theory with the 2500 year old metaphysical speculation from India as I recall it (and so could be a suspect interpretation). Instead of a quantum field, there is what's called Prakriti a kind of primal infinite potential with the three innate qualities I mentioned previously. It is the interplay of those simple qualities which give rise to the complexity of all the changing forms and forces in the universe. Sattwa or Intelligence is one of those simple qualities which modulates the other two and is more evident or present in life forms e.g. homeostasis and metabolism would be examples of its presence at an organic level and rationalisation at a mental level. A pebble on the sea shore would have little if any intelligence and its tamasic form would be at the mercy of the rajasic forces of wind and waves. I suppose you could say that Sattwic intelligence is an emergent property but of the primal Prakriti not from the increasing complexity of life forms.
The ancient Greeks too had ideas on the fundamental nature of reality, some of which sound surprisingly modern. The Pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus developed an idea resembling atomic theory over two thousand years before Enlightenment Europe started to get back to where the Greeks had been. Arguably one of the most brilliant minds ever produced by homo sapiens, the entire works of Democritus, and there were a great many, were all destroyed by Theodosius in his elimination of all writings that varied from the Christian script, plunging Europe into a Dark Ages that would last centuries. Such was the scale of the intellectual catastrophe for European thought, courtesy of the early church.
-
As Rudyard Kipling said: 'OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet' but he did make exceedingly good cakes. ;)
Lol! Yes....but that was ok in the 19th century. The British lived and ruled India for so long but did no pick up anything.
In today's globalized environment, the East and West cannot ignore each other. Just as India has to pick up Science and Technology from the West...so also the West has to pick up Philosophy and mysticism from India.
The supposed gap between Science and Spirituality/mysticism is artificial and is perpetuated by the West because of scientific and general snobbery. I expect that in coming generations, mainly due to Indian efforts and perhaps German and American, the gap might close significantly.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I think you'll find the West had a handle on Philosophy long before the British Raj. Think Pythagoras.
As to mysticism...... a whole other basket of fish, which I have no time for filleting at the moment. But in short, mysticism does nothing but pander to the already existing wishes and thoughts of the person involved. The embodiment of confirmation bias.
-
I think you'll find the West had a handle on Philosophy long before the British Raj. Think Pythagoras.
As to mysticism...... a whole other basket of fish, which I have no time for filleting at the moment. But in short, mysticism does nothing but pander to the already existing wishes and thoughts of the person involved. The embodiment of confirmation bias.
See what I mean!!!
-
See what I mean!!!
No I don't.
It's no good claiming this superior position as in "We are all spiritual and philosophical and so much better for it" (with an at least partially false claim) and then ignoring the points made.
In fact I actually hate the assumptions you make about a country you don't live in.
I could just as easily claim that India on my observations during my travels there is an incredibly backward country with sectarianism rife and superstition being favoured instead of rational thinking. I could claim that, but I wouldn't because A) I know that it is a much more complicated situation than that and my observations are those of an outsider with no deep understanding of the country, and B) I'm not a condescending pillock.
-
Actually ekim...all this Indian philosophy is not likely to have any impact in this forum. I have tried it over nearly 20 years. Explaining the nature of the Intelligence that drives Nature is a very complex thing. Nature (Prakriti) itself is intelligent and human intelligence is only one derivative of it.
I am trying to explain a very simple phenomenon....that of artificial selection and technological evolution....in which evolution is driven by intelligence...and this is not being understood. They still maintain that evolution and Intelligence are incompatible....and that Intelligence cannot precede evolution.
Darwin himself came up with Natural Selection only after he observed Artificial Selection.
Yes Sriram you stick to your eastern things like a caged bird picking your horoscope out from a pack of pre-written cards, deep mysticism type thing, it's so progressive when you compare these methods to how we do things in the west.
Ever thought to yourself, 'now how or where do I find any evidence to support supernatural ideas'?
Regards Sriram, ippy
-
As Rudyard Kipling said: 'OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet' but he did make exceedingly good cakes. ;)
Clearly he never went to the Royal Observatory at Greenwich.
-
so also the West has to pick up Philosophy and mysticism from India.
Western philosophy is demonstrably superior to modern Eastern philosophy. Science is the result of testing your philosophical ideas against reality. Modern science has its roots in the era of the European enlightenment.
-
Lol! Yes....but that was ok in the 19th century. The British lived and ruled India for so long but did no pick up anything.
In today's globalized environment, the East and West cannot ignore each other. Just as India has to pick up Science and Technology from the West...so also the West has to pick up Philosophy and mysticism from India.
The supposed gap between Science and Spirituality/mysticism is artificial and is perpetuated by the West because of scientific and general snobbery. I expect that in coming generations, mainly due to Indian efforts and perhaps German and American, the gap might close significantly.
Cheers.
Sriram
There is actually a close affinity between the religious and philosophical traditions of Greece and India because both are derived from a common Proto-Indo-European source. One shared cultural inheritance is dualistic thinking, a subject that has been frequently visited on this forum. I think a lot of the disagreement with you is not because of any objection to your Indian cultural heritage but rather because of your commitment to supernatural theories and explanations. Christians who make similar claims come in for just as much stick here, possibly even more so. Another point perhaps worth making is that 'the east' is not a uniform entity. You've made little secret of your dislike of Zen, for instance. Western philosophy is similarly varied, even though it is true that mainstream philosophy in the west has been very slow to embrace eastern philosophical ideas. People are inherently tribal and tend to resist new and alternative ways of seeing the world. Westerners do not have a monopoly on this shortcoming. So called 'western' ways of thinking don't suit all westerners, either. Hence the increasing interest in western countries in oriental and other approaches to spirituality, since at least the time of Blavatski.
Your two decades of posting on forums like this one have clearly jaundiced you somewhat, and perhaps with good reason. One problem is that this kind of forum encourages a confrontational kind of debate where people tend to lose patience with each other after a short while, when it becomes obvious that other folk are too stupid or stubborn to change their minds. Another problem is that discussion of religion and spirituality tends to be reduced to a contest of ideas, which is carried on at a purely intellectual level, thus draining whatever life there might have been in the subject from it at the outset. For me these discussions become interesting when people are prepared to share experiences, but for understandable reasons many posters seldom if ever do this, which is a shame. The subject matter of this forum is one that operates, if at all, at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. It is hardly surprising that so little mutual understanding is ever achieved by bludgeoning each other with ideas.
-
There is actually a close affinity between the religious and philosophical traditions of Greece and India because both are derived from a common Proto-Indo-European source. One shared cultural inheritance is dualistic thinking, a subject that has been frequently visited on this forum. I think a lot of the disagreement with you is not because of any objection to your Indian cultural heritage but rather because of your commitment to supernatural theories and explanations. Christians who make similar claims come in for just as much stick here, possibly even more so. Another point perhaps worth making is that 'the east' is not a uniform entity. You've made little secret of your dislike of Zen, for instance. Western philosophy is similarly varied, even though it is true that mainstream philosophy in the west has been very slow to embrace eastern philosophical ideas. People are inherently tribal and tend to resist new and alternative ways of seeing the world. Westerners do not have a monopoly on this shortcoming. So called 'western' ways of thinking don't suit all westerners, either. Hence the increasing interest in western countries in oriental and other approaches to spirituality, since at least the time of Blavatski.
Your two decades of posting on forums like this one have clearly jaundiced you somewhat, and perhaps with good reason. One problem is that this kind of forum encourages a confrontational kind of debate where people tend to lose patience with each other after a short while, when it becomes obvious that other folk are too stupid or stubborn to change their minds. Another problem is that discussion of religion and spirituality tends to be reduced to a contest of ideas, which is carried on at a purely intellectual level, thus draining whatever life there might have been in the subject from it at the outset. For me these discussions become interesting when people are prepared to share experiences, but for understandable reasons many posters seldom if ever do this, which is a shame. The subject matter of this forum is one that operates, if at all, at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. It is hardly surprising that so little mutual understanding is ever achieved by bludgeoning each other with ideas.
I agree with you. But experiences according to most people here are just internal chemical reactions. They have no bearing on objective reality...or so they believe. So sharing experiences is rather irrelevant to these discussions. Purely intellectual ideas and objective evidence are the only criterion around here.
I have no problems with disagreements. But in spite of repeated explanations, in fairly reasonable english, if the argument is not even understood...that's a problem. It is a mindset problem not a East or West problem.
This stems from the assumption made by many that, if any person argues in favor of spirituality or God or any other supposedly 'supernatural' phenomena, then, they are automatically ignorant of science. This presumption is at the root of lot of snobbery.
-
The ancient Greeks too had ideas on the fundamental nature of reality, some of which sound surprisingly modern. The Pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus developed an idea resembling atomic theory over two thousand years before Enlightenment Europe started to get back to where the Greeks had been. Arguably one of the most brilliant minds ever produced by homo sapiens, the entire works of Democritus, and there were a great many, were all destroyed by Theodosius in his elimination of all writings that varied from the Christian script, plunging Europe into a Dark Ages that would last centuries. Such was the scale of the intellectual catastrophe for European thought, courtesy of the early church.
Yes, such is the nature of autocratic thought, it gets involved with power politics and has a tendency to suppress all other thought. The Indian metaphysics tended towards how to transcend the realm of thought using the Sattwa/Rajas/ Tamas template and a variety of yogas was developed. Science seems to revolve around examining Rajas/Tamas e.g. forces and forms, waves and particles, energy and mass and manipulating them, whereas the yogas tend to emphasise Sattwa (intelligence) as a harmonising function which already exists in its own right and naturally manipulates the other two. It is probably what Eastern healing methods are based upon.
-
I agree with you. But experiences according to most people here are just internal chemical reactions. They have no bearing on objective reality...or so they believe. So sharing experiences is rather irrelevant to these discussions. Purely intellectual ideas and objective evidence are the only criterion around here.
I have no problems with disagreements. But in spite of repeated explanations, in fairly reasonable english, if the argument is not even understood...that's a problem. It is a mindset problem not a East or West problem.
This stems from the assumption made by many that, if any person argues in favor of spirituality or God or any other supposedly 'supernatural' phenomena, then, they are automatically ignorant of science. This presumption is at the root of lot of snobbery.
I doubt if anyone here actually thinks that experiences are 'just internal chemical reactions' (my italics). I suspect the crux of disagreement may be that others see experiences as emergent phenomena dependent on neural activity, rather than indicative of some sort of separate non-material consciousness or 'objective reality'. We all have experiences but talking about them in these terms takes us into the realm of the intellect, which is perhaps where experience (and life) goes to die. Ideas matter but they matter to us personally at an emotional level and we argue about them principally, I think, because we gather them about us to help build up a sense of solid identity, which may then feel threatened by competing ideas. If spirituality is about anything it is about the whole of life as it is experienced and whilst aspects of it may be expressed as ideas these ideas actually live only at the level of experience. As someone who has never experienced the so called 'supernatural' I find it meaningless to be told about it at the level of ideas. Thus a supernatural God and your belief in reincarnation, for instance, are equally without purchase on my life, not through any refusal on my part to take an interest in them but simply because I am unable to experience why such things matter to other people. Science and spirituality come into conflict when they compete as ideas, which only occurs when spirituality manifests as belief - and this happens, I think, when it loses its indivisible engagement with experienced life and becomes interred in the graveyard of the intellect. Forums like this one offer an opportunity for people to share experiences rather than simply to participate in a futile combat of ideas. For me at least, it would be of far more interest to know what people get out of their beliefs than to read interminable arguments that purport to substantiate them.
-
Ok....the East West discussion was in reply to ekim's post on India philosophy...
On this thread at any rate I have been trying to point out that lot of evolution....technological and due to artificial selection....happens because of intelligent intervention.
So... evolution and intelligent design can and do go together. They are not mutually exclusive. Simple enough!
-
Ok....the East West discussion was in reply to ekim's post on India philosophy...
On this thread at any rate I have been trying to point out that lot of evolution....technological and due to artificial selection....happens because of intelligent intervention.
So... evolution and intelligent design can and do go together. They are not mutually exclusive. Simple enough!
OK... so why does it matter to you that 'evolution and intelligent design can and do go together'?
-
That's what the OP was about.....
-
Ok....the East West discussion was in reply to ekim's post on India philosophy...
On this thread at any rate I have been trying to point out that lot of evolution....technological and due to artificial selection....happens because of intelligent intervention.
So... evolution and intelligent design can and do go together. They are not mutually exclusive. Simple enough!
But 'intelligent intervention' isn't the same thing at all as natural selection as per the TofE.
-
Sriram
The computer-like programming of DNA in the way of encoding information is certainly a form of design, and also very intelligent.
-
There is actually a close affinity between the religious and philosophical traditions of Greece and India because both are derived from a common Proto-Indo-European source. One shared cultural inheritance is dualistic thinking, a subject that has been frequently visited on this forum. I think a lot of the disagreement with you is not because of any objection to your Indian cultural heritage but rather because of your commitment to supernatural theories and explanations. Christians who make similar claims come in for just as much stick here, possibly even more so. Another point perhaps worth making is that 'the east' is not a uniform entity. You've made little secret of your dislike of Zen, for instance. Western philosophy is similarly varied, even though it is true that mainstream philosophy in the west has been very slow to embrace eastern philosophical ideas. People are inherently tribal and tend to resist new and alternative ways of seeing the world. Westerners do not have a monopoly on this shortcoming. So called 'western' ways of thinking don't suit all westerners, either. Hence the increasing interest in western countries in oriental and other approaches to spirituality, since at least the time of Blavatski.
Your two decades of posting on forums like this one have clearly jaundiced you somewhat, and perhaps with good reason. One problem is that this kind of forum encourages a confrontational kind of debate where people tend to lose patience with each other after a short while, when it becomes obvious that other folk are too stupid or stubborn to change their minds. Another problem is that discussion of religion and spirituality tends to be reduced to a contest of ideas, which is carried on at a purely intellectual level, thus draining whatever life there might have been in the subject from it at the outset. For me these discussions become interesting when people are prepared to share experiences, but for understandable reasons many posters seldom if ever do this, which is a shame. The subject matter of this forum is one that operates, if at all, at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. It is hardly surprising that so little mutual understanding is ever achieved by bludgeoning each other with ideas.
Wouldn't it be better to ignore Siriam's posts rather than flatter these supernatural ideas of his with some sort of a 'discussion' if that's the right word to use?
ippy
-
Wouldn't it be better to ignore Siriam's posts rather than flatter these supernatural ideas of his with some sort of a 'discussion' if that's the right word to use?
ippy
You're probably right, Ippy. I've gone through periods of ignoring him in the past and it was probably a mistake to renew contact again. It wasn't my intention to flatter his ideas though. On the matter of evolution, people who argue for intelligent design invariably do so because they have an agenda, and it was that I wanted to get at. When Darwin proposed his theory he upset a lot of people because the theory challenged scripture, left God out of the picture and claimed that we are related to apes. Those folk were upfront about their reasons for being offended. Today people who argue for intelligent design are more subtle and attempt to do so on the basis of 'evidence', as if presenting a credible alternative scientific opinion, rather than simply being honest that they can't accept the implications of Darwin's theory because it upsets their religious worldview. Arguing against someone's emotionally based beliefs with facts is like trying to scare off a large bull by throwing grass at it. It's what happens here every day. That's why I tried to get Sriram to explain why he was so invested in intelligent design. I'm genuinely interested, because I like to understand how other people function. It's probably a lost cause, though, as you say.
-
Sriram
The computer-like programming of DNA in the way of encoding information is certainly a form of design, and also very intelligent.
Yes SweetPea. It is obvious that there is Intelligence built into every DNA. There is no doubt about that.
Intelligence, of different kinds, can be both the source and outcome of evolution.
-
You're probably right, Ippy. I've gone through periods of ignoring him in the past and it was probably a mistake to renew contact again. It wasn't my intention to flatter his ideas though. On the matter of evolution, people who argue for intelligent design invariably do so because they have an agenda, and it was that I wanted to get at. When Darwin proposed his theory he upset a lot of people because the theory challenged scripture, left God out of the picture and claimed that we are related to apes. Those folk were upfront about their reasons for being offended. Today people who argue for intelligent design are more subtle and attempt to do so on the basis of 'evidence', as if presenting a credible alternative scientific opinion, rather than simply being honest that they can't accept the implications of Darwin's theory because it upsets their religious worldview. Arguing against someone's emotionally based beliefs with facts is like trying to scare off a large bull by throwing grass at it. It's what happens here every day. That's why I tried to get Sriram to explain why he was so invested in intelligent design. I'm genuinely interested, because I like to understand how other people function. It's probably a lost cause, though, as you say.
I would find discussions about intelligent design a bit like explaining how thunder is caused to a cave man, assuming he could communicate in modern English, it looks like we're back to the Eastern, bird in a cage picking out horoscopes written on cards for the gullible again.
Ooh those philistine Westerners they all score zero on mysticism; you can have all of my share Sriram.
When you find how many of the things you keep on coming up with have no evidence to support belief in them, doesn't that ring a bell inside your head now and again?
Regards Sriram, I wish you well, ippy
-
Wouldn't it be better to ignore Siriam's posts rather than flatter these supernatural ideas of his with some sort of a 'discussion' if that's the right word to use?
ippy
Why are most of the non-believers on this forum so unpleasant and obsessively sarcastic?
-
Why are most of the non-believers on this forum so unpleasant and obsessively sarcastic?
ippy has a very unique way of ignoring me. He trolls me around! :D
-
ippy has a very unique way of ignoring me. He trolls me around! :D
Says the man that seems to like believing in blue elephant headed men that like to fly around on some kind of, I assume, flying rat.
Regards to you Sriram, ippy
-
Says the man that seems to like believing in blue elephant headed men that like to fly around on some kind of, I assume, flying rat.
Regards to you Sriram, ippy
As I was saying...
-
As I was saying...
Am I wrong about the Blue Elephant headed man then?
Regards ippy
-
Can YOU prove Ganesh doesn't exist at all.
Is Sriram trying to force you to believe it
-
Why are most of the non-believers on this forum so unpleasant and obsessively sarcastic?
Because they are incapable of thinking outside of their own box Steven. SweetPea can (but she is not a 'non-believer'). Why people cannot see things from other points of view is beyond me and they are so rude! Sririam, on other hand, explains things from his pov very well and is never discourteous. As far as I know he's the only Hindu on here, intelligent and educated too. I love his posts. We don't have to agree with him but it wouldn't hurt to show some manners.
Oh and Ganesh is not always portrayed as blue!
https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=ganesh+pictures&fr=yhs-itm-001&hspart=itm&hsimp=yhs-001&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Ae0fXmtmmr0%2FUEWdxuLXKpI%2FAAAAAAAAAOA%2F3H0kyqr0auU%2Fs1600%2FGanesha%2BWallpapers%2B4.jpg#id=2&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fgalleryofgod.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fwpid-lord-ganesha-picture-hd-wallpapers.jpg&action=click
-
Why people cannot see things from other points of view is beyond me and they are so rude
Well, I do try to see others pov, but sometimes it is not possible with some posters. No names. On looking at rudeness though, it strikes me it emanates from both sides in about equal measure.
Also as with 'quality' discussed elsewhere 'rudeness' can be quite hard to define. Some things I find rude you might not and Vicky Versatile.
-
Agree there NS but scoffing and sarcasm, especially against people who have posted something well thought out& who are never rude, is wrong from my point of view. Disrespectful& shows gross ignorance. Didn't we all do a certain amount of comparative religion even if not very well taught & go to school with a cross section of people?
I was taught from an early age, in a gentle way and by example, to be sensitive to the views of others. Wouldn't necessarily be easy if we had posters here who were members of cults like 'Children of God' or that Waco bloke but we don't (I'd even be prepared to give them a hearing & try not to be influenced by anything I'd read). Those of Hindu faith are mainstream in our culture & I find what is said here by them (only one) very interesting even if I don't embrace it, wouldn't think of being rude.
Maybe I show my age (58), dunno. Younger people probably feel & react differently.
-
Agree there NS but scoffing and sarcasm, especially against people who have posted something well thought out& who are never rude, is wrong from my point of view. Disrespectful& shows gross ignorance. Didn't we all do a certain amount of comparative religion even if not very well taught & go to school with a cross section of people?
I was taught from an early age, in a gentle way and by example, to be sensitive to the views of others. Wouldn't necessarily be easy if we had posters here who were members of cults like 'Children of God' or that Waco bloke but we don't (I'd even be prepared to give them a hearing & try not to be influenced by anything I'd read). Those of Hindu faith are mainstream in our culture & I find what is said here by them (only one) very interesting even if I don't embrace it, wouldn't think of being rude.
Maybe I show my age (58), dunno. Younger people probably feel & react differently.
You mean TV not NS?
-
Maybe I show my age (58), dunno. Younger people probably feel & react differently.
I'm not sure age is a defining factor in this case. I think it is more to do with the nature of MB's. From the bits of info dropped out casually by folks here I would say that it is an older demographic. I'm 62 this year and I know that many posters on here are thereabouts and some are older. Not many that much younger, is my impression. I may be wrong.
As to comparative religion, not that I remember. Had a Bible chucked at me at the start of Grammar school and we stuck with that one book for 5 years solid.
-
NO!!!Indeed not.
Blue usually means having a mind as open & receptive as the sky.
Lord Krishna is nearly always depicted as blue-skinned for that very reason.
N
-
My favourite colour too Trippy, beautiful.
Sorry I said NS when I meant Trent, don't know why.
I did do some comparative religion at school Trent, I woudn't say it was very accurate :-), maybe the teachers weren't equipped to talk about non-Christian faiths with any authority but let's face it, there are so many facets of Christianity alone, never mind Judaism, Islam and Hinduism so the religions could only be skimmed. My parents were quite knowledgeable.
When my children were at school individual school children from various faiths did presentations which were interesting. Different times.
Doesn't matter much now anyway, we nearly all dropped religious studies after 'O' level (I do know someone who did it for 'A', bless. She got an A but she wasn't at my school); like most of us I've done my own independent delving since school days but don't pretend to be an expert, it would take a lifetime to be anything like. All I know is I love diversity & try to treat everyone as I would like to be treated.
-
Can YOU prove Ganesh doesn't exist at all.
Is Sriram trying to force you to believe it
I don't spend my time worrying about rather primitive things usually portrayed in a rather primitive form of art that might just as well be pictures portraying the honey monster, If I did why should I expect any respect for this belief or expect to be taken seriously about it when writing things about other areas of this rather strange belief?
Regards ippy
-
Thanks Steve, Nick and Robbie for defending me. I appreciate it.
And never mind ippy. :D As I said earlier, poor chap, he tries very hard to ignore me but starts off with his 'blue elephant' thingy every other post, just to make me react. ;)
By the way, Ganesh, the elephant god, is probably an ancient forest god created by villagers for fear of elephants. There are thousands of such gods across the country.
The thing is that, in Hinduism, unlike Christianity or Islam, no one forced people to reject their traditional gods and worship something that they considered as the only true God. All images are false and one is as good as the other.
Instead, in Hinduism, all such gods are treated as avatars or incarnations of the one true God. This helped people to continue with their traditional practices while also integrating them all together as one religion. Hinduism is actually a collection of several religious practices put together.
In other words, in Hinduism whether you worship Ganesh or Shiva or Vishnu or Jesus or allah or any of the other gods it does not matter at all. The faith that you have will awaken your inner divinity... which is the purpose of all worship.
Anyway I think we have strayed sufficiently from the subject of the OP.
Thanks & Cheers. :)
Sriram
-
You explain Hinduism eloquently Sririam. There's great beauty & poetry in it, don't know why others can't see that.
I love the story of Durga:- https://www.thoughtco.com/goddess-durga-1770363
which was told to me a couple of years ago by an actress called Durga; I was almost transported into a different world when she told the story.
(You will laugh when I tell you that afterwards my husband described it as Greek mythology ::). Bless him, but he did enjoy the narrative.)
Ippy don't get bogged down with Ganesh; Sririam has explained that particular deity.
Instead - rejoice for Anne whom I only found out about recently, would love to see her:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31_LJu9758
We all need beauty in our lives & you were rude about Hinduism which was not forced upon you by sririam. I'dhate the only real Hindu on this forum to back off.The artwork may not be to your taste (ie not like the Jackson Pollacks your rich neighbours have on their walls), but is spectacular nonetheless.
There's room for, if not all, most of us.
-
Oh yes...Robbie. There are hundreds of stories in our epics and puranas. Many of the stories contain several sub stories.
I am not sure if you have read the main two stories that every Hindu knows and loves...The Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Fairly long and elaborate texts especially the Mahabharata.
There are also the stories of Krishna and his childhood.
-
Not getting this:
Because they are incapable of thinking outside of their own box Steven. SweetPea can (but she is not a 'non-believer'). .....
..... in connection with this...
"Why are most of the non-believers on this forum so unpleasant and obsessively sarcastic?" from Steve
???
Ah well...
-
In an effort to get back on track....
'Energy' .... which is the base of everything.... where did it come from?
-
You explain Hinduism eloquently Sririam. There's great beauty & poetry in it, don't know why others can't see that.
I love the story of Durga:- https://www.thoughtco.com/goddess-durga-1770363
which was told to me a couple of years ago by an actress called Durga; I was almost transported into a different world when she told the story.
(You will laugh when I tell you that afterwards my husband described it as Greek mythology ::). Bless him, but he did enjoy the narrative.)
Ippy don't get bogged down with Ganesh; Sririam has explained that particular deity.
Instead - rejoice for Anne whom I only found out about recently, would love to see her:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31_LJu9758
We all need beauty in our lives & you were rude about Hinduism which was not forced upon you by sririam. I'dhate the only real Hindu on this forum to back off.The artwork may not be to your taste (ie not like the Jackson Pollacks your rich neighbours have on their walls), but is spectacular nonetheless.
There's room for, if not all, most of us.
Robbie
About your post...I rarely try to talk about Hinduism here. Hinduism is too vast and complex to be explained easily and I know it would be very difficult for people here to understand it.
On most occasions what I try to discuss here is only secular spirituality and the gaps in scientific knowledge. Not connected with Hinduism at all. Some people like ippy prefer to rack up Hinduism completely out of context because they find it easy to throw stones at....
If you want a quick synopsis on Hinduism here it is....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/hinduismaaaa/
What I have pointed out on this thread is about Intelligence being responsible for the evolution of several man made products, some of which (robots) have evolved to become Intelligent too. So, merely because there is evidence for evolution does not mean Intelligent intervention is automatically ruled out.
-
In an effort to get back on track....
'Energy' .... which is the base of everything.... where did it come from?
Are you asking because you don't know or because you do know but want to see alternate explanatons?
-
In an effort to get back on track....
'Energy' .... which is the base of everything.... where did it come from?
Maybe it didn't come from anywhere. If it did come from somewhere, we would just ask, how did it get there in the first place ?
-
Sorry Sweet Pea my post was clumsy. Your post 63 showed me you think outside your little box which I noted in my response to Stephen H but then I thought, "She's not a non-believer". I apologise for being less than clear, since I came back from hol on Saturday I've been dozy, even thought Trent was NS! Back to work today and back to normal(whatever normal is).
-
That's alright, Robbie.
When I was working, if we had been holidaying abroad, I would usually book an extra day off work just to readjust before returning the following day.
-
Seb #88.... no I don't know where energy comes from and it would be good to hear some explanations.
Torridon #89.... yes, that's interesting that energy may have always been especially, as we know, it cannot be destroyed.
It also brings to mind that Ahayah, God said, “I am Alpha and Omega” and also, “you are made in my image” which I've often wondered could possibly be referring to energy.
I know that comment will cause some cognitive dissonance but it's just an idea.
-
You explain Hinduism eloquently Sririam. There's great beauty & poetry in it, don't know why others can't see that.
I love the story of Durga:- https://www.thoughtco.com/goddess-durga-1770363
which was told to me a couple of years ago by an actress called Durga; I was almost transported into a different world when she told the story.
(You will laugh when I tell you that afterwards my husband described it as Greek mythology ::). Bless him, but he did enjoy the narrative.)
Ippy don't get bogged down with Ganesh; Sririam has explained that particular deity.
Instead - rejoice for Anne whom I only found out about recently, would love to see her:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31_LJu9758
We all need beauty in our lives & you were rude about Hinduism which was not forced upon you by sririam. I'dhate the only real Hindu on this forum to back off.The artwork may not be to your taste (ie not like the Jackson Pollacks your rich neighbours have on their walls), but is spectacular nonetheless.
There's room for, if not all, most of us.
By the way Rob, I'm not a particular fan of Jackson Pollock, if you remember you didn't quite get it when I was telling you about some seriously rich people there are living in and around Safron Walden so I gave you an example of just how wealthy these people are that I've completed some work for, I would really like to be in that league but unfortunatly; you or anyone else would need a seriously bit more than ten bob a week pocket money to be able to buy a Jackson Pollock anything.
Now as for the not so poor old Sriram, don't worry about him too much he hands out plenty that I guess you've missed but I'll give it to him his asides are missed by a lot of the posters on this forum Rob, not just you.
Regards ippy
By the way I'm in Salamanca at the mo, I've just put my feet up after a long days travelling, looking forward to my guided tours of those lovely old church buildings tomorrow, they were built when the religions were able to run as the only show in town, the're a credit to the skill of the craftsmen that built them, what else?
-
Seb #88.... no I don't know where energy comes from and it would be good to hear some explanations.
Torridon #89.... yes, that's interesting that energy may have always been especially, as we know, it cannot be destroyed.
It also brings to mind that Ahayah, God said, “I am Alpha and Omega” and also, “you are made in my image” which I've often wondered could possibly be referring to energy.
I know that comment will cause some cognitive dissonance but it's just an idea.
I think it is one of those conceptual things that we find near impossible to conceptualise. Like the infinity of space; or if space is finite, then what lies outside it. What happened before time started ? Science has taken us to a point where we have to realise that our common understanding of the most fundamental aspects of reality - space, time, energy, matter, infinity, are all flawed, they are products of our particular intellectual historical development that have boxed us into thinking within particular frames. To break out to those frames is not easy.
-
I think it is one of those conceptual things that we find near impossible to conceptualise. Like the infinity of space; or if space is finite, then what lies outside it. What happened before time started ? Science has taken us to a point where we have to realise that our common understanding of the most fundamental aspects of reality - space, time, energy, matter, infinity, are all flawed, they are products of our particular intellectual historical development that have boxed us into thinking within particular frames. To break out to those frames is not easy.
Your quote....'they are products of our particular intellectual historical development that have boxed us into thinking within particular frames.'
Yes indeed. And that is the whole point. To imagine that we actually understand reality is the biggest mistake we make. And this is a mistake many old school science people tend to make. That is the way 20th century science developed.
But now, as we dig deeper we realize the inconsistencies and uncertainties of our understanding. The world is not as straight forward and simple as we thought.
I expect you will immediately go to the other extreme and argue that...."'God' and religious beliefs do not explain anything either". I know that!
The whole point of spiritual philosophy is not to explain the nature of the physical world at all....rather, it is meant to redirect our attention away from the external physical world to the more important and more relevant inner world.
-
I think it is one of those conceptual things that we find near impossible to conceptualise. Like the infinity of space; or if space is finite, then what lies outside it.
The usual formula to describe what cosmologists believe the universe is like is "finite but unbounded". The surface of the earth is as well - you can go anywhere, and keep moving on it for ever, but it is not infinite: it has a definite surface area. The surface is two-dimensional, but bent into a three dimensional sphere. Similarly, the universe is three-dimensional, but bent into a four-dimensional hypersphere.
-
In an effort to get back on track....
'Energy' .... which is the base of everything.... where did it come from?
That's not really getting back on track. That's the abiogenesis question again, or the first cause argument. That can be argued about (and will) till the cows come home.
However, the question is about evolution, which is a phenomenon inferred from various observable data: the fossil record, genetics, and similarity of structures in related living organisms etc etc.
-
Yeah, but why did the cows ever leave home?
-
Yeah, but why did the cows ever leave home?
To get to the other side, of course.
-
To get to the other side, of course.
Because they had a wee calf
-
Because they had a wee calf
:) Superb!
-
:) Superb!
Not original but seemed fitting. It does benefit if you think with a West coast accent.
-
To get to the other side, of course.
Pull the udder one.
-
Pull the udder one.
She was only a common country cow, but she liked her 'uddersfield.
I'll get me coat.
Anyone fancy talking about evolution again?
-
Negative arguments against intelligentdesign:
Bad design, such as the circuitous path followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, perfectly explainable if evolution is assumed: it can be traced to the innervation of gills in fish, so goes back a long way to our piscine ancestors.
Hi Steve,
I seem to have retired from this forum in order to think about why the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a good design.
I've concluded, for today anyway, that from an intelligent designer's point of view it would be more efficient to use a common plan for all vertebrates rather than one for those without a neck and another for those with a neck (especially if you've only got six days to do it). If it means the long-necked ones had to use thicker myelin sheaths to get the nerve impulses to the larynx quick enough, that doesn't matter.
-
Hi Steve,
I seem to have retired from this forum in order to think about why the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a good design.
I've concluded, for today anyway, that from an intelligent designer's point of view it would be more efficient to use a common plan for all vertebrates rather than one for those without a neck and another for those with a neck (especially if you've only got six days to do it). If it means the long-necked ones had to use thicker myelin sheaths to get the nerve impulses to the larynx quick enough, that doesn't matter.
Oh, come on - you're getting desperate now! the R.L. nerve is only one of many examples, and the time constraint hardly matters to an omnipotent being.
-
Oh, come on - you're getting desperate now! the R.L. nerve is only one of many examples, and the time constraint hardly matters to an omnipotent being.
Since there are too many examples to look at, I'll stick with the rl nerve.
-
That we start out life as a little fish makes sense, since before birth we are surrounded by fluid. Could be an argument for evolution and intelligent design. Since there are too many examples to look at, I'll stick with the rl nerve.
Wasn't there something about stop digging?
ippy
-
That we start out life as a little fish makes sense, since before birth we are surrounded by fluid. Could be an argument for evolution and intelligent design. Since there are too many examples to look at, I'll stick with the rl nerve.
It could be an argument for it - if you are really, really desperate for it to be true.
-
It could be an argument for it - if you are really, really desperate for it to be true.
Or already convinced.
-
Wasn't there something about stop digging?
ippy
I find it interesting, ippy. Thanks though - I'll try not to overdo it!
-
Or already convinced.
No. You maybe convinced of the conclusion but clearly from your posts you are looking really hard to try to get the observations to fit that conclusion. As I say, really, really desperate for it to be true.
-
I find it interesting, ippy. Thanks though - I'll try not to overdo it!
Too late Spud, put your scientist hat on and dump the other one, you must know it makes sense.
Regards ippy
-
No. You maybe convinced of the conclusion but clearly from your posts you are looking really hard to try to get the observations to fit that conclusion. As I say, really, really desperate for it to be true.
So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.
-
So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.
Spud
I suggest you really need to get yourself a decent textbook on evolution: one written by the experts and not creationist claptrap.
-
So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.
There is evidence to support both evolutionary processes. That they occur over different time periods is not an issue unless you want it to be.
-
So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.
No. That's evolution and a very good way to highlight how it works. If, that is, you are prepared to put in a bit of research.
-
So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.
Desperation for what by the way?
-
So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.
Nowt wrong with that. Some creatures are so well adapted to their environment that they haven't changed much in millions of years (crocodiles, as well as turtles, for example) while others have changed considerably.
I do find amusing the way fundies regularly say that some aspect of evolutionary theory is "desperation", when their own idiotic hypothesis is fuller of holes than a leaky colander. Spud's recent attempts to explain why the recurrent laryngeal nerve isn't an example of bad design look pretty desperate to me.
-
Well, it seems to assume uniform change across all species, which is a creationist fantasy. As Steve said, there's no reason why one family cannot remain the same, and another changes, depending on environmental pressures..
-
Well, it seems to assume uniform change across all species, which is a creationist fantasy. As Steve said, there's no reason why one family cannot remain the same, and another changes, depending on environmental pressures..
As I was writing that post I thought the response would be that there must have been a time during which something else changed into turtles through environmental pressures. I think it's claimed that a transitional fossil has been found.
Nowt wrong with that. Some creatures are so well adapted to their environment that they haven't changed much in millions of years (crocodiles, as well as turtles, for example) while others have changed considerably.
I do find amusing the way fundies regularly say that some aspect of evolutionary theory is "desperation", when their own idiotic hypothesis is fuller of holes than a leaky colander. Spud's recent attempts to explain why the recurrent laryngeal nerve isn't an example of bad design look pretty desperate to me.
I haven't really said much, and I wasn't particularly serious about it, except to note that there is a common body plan in tetrapods which could be used to infer both I.D. and evolution.
I have seen other people on the net suggesting there are good reasons for the circuitous route. In particular, one doctor pointed out that it passes close to various lymph nodes, which means that if those nodes become enlarged due to a disease process, the nerve can be irritated causing hoarseness or cough. Thus it could be an early warning system, both to warn the owner and others that he is sick. If he has an infectious disease such as tuberculosis then this is clearly useful.
Try gently squeezing the sides of your trachea below the larynx. That's where the RLN is, and you might notice the need to cough. A possible defense mechanism in case of external pressure on the airway?
A possible analogy explaining how the design is necessary is where you are driving on a motorway and you pass the house you want to visit, but have to stay on the motorway until the next exit. You can't have an exit for every house you pass.
Here's a cross section of the human neck:
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-cross-section-through-neck-7710121.html
The vagus travels down the neck within a sheath containing the internal carotid artery and jugular vein. It may not be possible for it to branch while contained in this sheath.
Another point, which is neither here nor there but worth a mention, is that it isn't just the larynx that is wired backwards, but the whole trachea and the upper 1/3 of the oesophagus too. These seem to be a functional unit, necessary for swallowing and coughing. The muscles innervated by the RLN are concerned with the opening and closing of the airway and oesophagus, whereas the muscle innervated by the Superior laryngeal nerve is concerned with speech, allowing changes in pitch.
Lastly: if you view the circuitous route as a vestige of evolution, you may end up barking up the wrong tree, instead of encouraging research into the specific reasons for its design.
-
The mutations are random ......
That is a questionable assertion.
The DNA molecule can be likened to a very complex piece of computer code, far more complex than any man made computer program. When I was a student in the early days of computing, we used to use a punched card for each line of computer code, and some of my programs required hundreds of punched cards. Sometimes there would be a random incident which caused a change in the sequence of cards, such as a missing card, or a stray card from another program being included, or some cards getting mixed up in the wrong order, or a card with a hole punched in the wrong place. In any of these scenarios I know from bitter experience that the result would be a program which either no longer worked or which output rubbish. If such a random incident actually produced an improvement in my results it would have been hailed as truly miraculous. There is a big price to pay for every beneficial mutation caused by purely random events, and our human DNA must have undergone billions of beneficial mutations in its transition from simple single cell organisms to the complex human beings we are today.
But were they all randomly generated? I think not.
-
That is a questionable assertion.
The DNA molecule can be likened to a very complex piece of computer code, far more complex than any man made computer program. When I was a student in the early days of computing, we used to use a punched card for each line of computer code, and some of my programs required hundreds of punched cards. Sometimes there would be a random incident which caused a change in the sequence of cards, such as a missing card, or a stray card from another program being included, or some cards getting mixed up in the wrong order, or a card with a hole punched in the wrong place. In any of these scenarios I know from bitter experience that the result would be a program which either no longer worked or which output rubbish. If such a random incident actually produced an improvement in my results it would have been hailed as truly miraculous. There is a big price to pay for every beneficial mutation caused by purely random events, and our human DNA must have undergone billions of beneficial mutations in its transition from simple single cell organisms to the complex human beings we are today.
But were they all randomly generated? I think not.
Well that is what the fossil record suggests, not to mention comparative studies of morphology and all we have learned from genetics. There are said to be dozen of regions of the human genome currently under selection pressure; do you really think God is busy there firing charged particles at us or otherwise interfering with cell replication to bring about his desired genetic change in key areas ? What a bizarre way of thinking. Why didn't he just get us right in the first place ?
-
That is a questionable assertion.
The DNA molecule can be likened to a very complex piece of computer code, far more complex than any man made computer program. When I was a student in the early days of computing, we used to use a punched card for each line of computer code, and some of my programs required hundreds of punched cards. Sometimes there would be a random incident which caused a change in the sequence of cards, such as a missing card, or a stray card from another program being included, or some cards getting mixed up in the wrong order, or a card with a hole punched in the wrong place. In any of these scenarios I know from bitter experience that the result would be a program which either no longer worked or which output rubbish. If such a random incident actually produced an improvement in my results it would have been hailed as truly miraculous. There is a big price to pay for every beneficial mutation caused by purely random events, and our human DNA must have undergone billions of beneficial mutations in its transition from simple single cell organisms to the complex human beings we are today.
But were they all randomly generated? I think not.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
-
The usual formula to describe what cosmologists believe the universe is like is "finite but unbounded". The surface of the earth is as well - you can go anywhere, and keep moving on it for ever, but it is not infinite: it has a definite surface area. The surface is two-dimensional, but bent into a three dimensional sphere. Similarly, the universe is three-dimensional, but bent into a four-dimensional hypersphere.
Simple!
???
I love how you pitch this as a kind of throw away remark, like a four-dimensional hypersphere ain't no thing. That's just how we role here on the religion and ethics forum.
-
I am just itching for Alan to show us how God produces mutations, maybe some diagrams would help to make it clearer. Why does he produce harmful ones? Or is it just the good ones?
-
Well that is what the fossil record suggests, not to mention comparative studies of morphology and all we have learned from genetics. There are said to be dozen of regions of the human genome currently under selection pressure; do you really think God is busy there firing charged particles at us or otherwise interfering with cell replication to bring about his desired genetic change in key areas ? What a bizarre way of thinking. Why didn't he just get us right in the first place ?
I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.
The fossil records indicate gradual development. They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided. The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.
-
I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.
The fossil records indicate gradual development. They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided. The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.
Can you show why this is the realistic view rather than just assert it? And can you outline your qualifications in the field of biology?
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
As I said in my post - random mutations can facilitate fine tuning on existing life forms.
-
As I said in my post - random mutations can facilitate fine tuning on existing life forms.
Come on, don't be a tease, show us how God organizes mutations. Any pix?
-
I am just itching for Alan to show us how God produces mutations, maybe some diagrams would help to make it clearer. Why does he produce harmful ones? Or is it just the good ones?
God's will has creative interaction with this universe in the same way as human free will can induce creativity through interaction with our physical brain cells.
If you read Sriram's earlier posts on this thread, he concurs with my thoughts in this area in that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.
-
Come on, don't be a tease, show us how God organizes mutations. Any pix?
God loved creating the Black Death. He loves the buboes
-
God has creative interaction with this universe in the same way as human free will can induce creativity through interaction with our physical brain cells.
If you read Sriram's earlier posts on this thread, he concurs with my thoughts in this area in that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.
Your god created cancer. You worship a murdering thug. You love killing children in pain
.
-
I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.
The fossil records indicate gradual development. They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided. The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.
Who's realistic view?
-
If you read Sriram's earlier posts on this thread, he concurs with my thoughts in this area in that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.
So?
-
Your god created cancer. You worship a murdering thug. You love killing children in pain
.
He does drive the kittens and rainbows view of nature into the ground, doesn't he?
I feel a Monty Python song coming on.
-
As I said in my post - random mutations can facilitate fine tuning on existing life forms.
Where did the existing life forms come from?
-
God's will has creative interaction with this universe in the same way as human free will can induce creativity through interaction with our physical brain cells.
If you read Sriram's earlier posts on this thread, he concurs with my thoughts in this area in that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.
Are you quite sure this is the road you wish to go down? Because if I was relying on Sriram for backup I'd be having serious doubts.
-
As I said in my post - random mutations can facilitate fine tuning on existing life forms.
Which, of course, had nothing at all to do with the post that I was responding to with its silly analogy of evolution being like computer programming with punch cards, and the idea that any random mistake leading to beneficial consequences would be 'truly miraculous'.(post 122).
As far as your idea of 'fine tuning' goes(which you mentioned later in post 127), I am assuming that you do realise that both macro and micro evolution are accepted by scientists as being part of the same process.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_01
Indeed, I believe it was evolutionary scientists who actually instigated the use of the words micro and macroevolution.
Why should I accept your word, rather than that of those who have experience and practice in their chosen areas of expertise?
On the basis of you saying: But were they all randomly generated? I think not.
?
Or you saying: I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which
is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.
?
And all without a shred of evidence for your belief at all!
I think not. :)
-
The fossil records indicate gradual development. They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided. The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.
[/quote]
How does NATURAL SELECTION exist if God lets it 'do it's own thing' so to speak.?
And don't fossils 'prove' The Bible is wrong?
Nick
-
I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.
The fossil records indicate gradual development. They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided. The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.
This is both bizarre and baseless thinking, not to mention totally self-contradictory. The idea that a god is 'interacting' with nature by interfering with what would otherwise happen naturally is overruling what would happen naturally. Why the play with words ? Why would a designer with unlimited powers not do good design from the outset ? Instead you give us a god making billions upon billions of micro adjustments such that the overall genome moves in the general direction of his divine plan but does so in a way that looks entirely natural. Tell us, how does god select which cells in which individuals to bring about copying errors in and what method does he employ to create the mutation. Does he just will them, or is he employing some natural looking method like cosmic rays, but precision engineered ones ? Did Europeans evolve white skin because god was took great care to target only individuals living in Europe with his precision particles ?
Where is the evidence for this line of thinking ? We cannot go around just making up surreal beliefs with no justification.
-
We cannot go around just making up surreal beliefs with no justification.
Oh, I think you'll find that some people can and do ...
-
Alan, once again, you want to have your cake and eat it. Our actions are influenced by previous events but not determined by them, evolution takes place but is influenced by but not controlled by God? Seems a strange approach to me, but then I don't believe in God or the soul so don't have to squeeze them into things like you do.
-
This is both bizarre and baseless thinking, not to mention totally self-contradictory. The idea that a god is 'interacting' with nature by interfering with what would otherwise happen naturally is overruling what would happen naturally. Why the play with words ?
I am just observing that creative activity, be it from humans or from God, is brought about by intelligent interaction which consciously manipulates the forces of nature, and does not override them.
-
Where did the existing life forms come from?
good question
-
good question
Yes it was. So?
-
I am just observing that creative activity, be it from humans or from God, is brought about by intelligent interaction which consciously manipulates the forces of nature, and does not override them.
But your claim is that God is interfering with what would otherwise happen naturally. Under normal circumstances cells replicate faithfully so if God is purposefully bringing about mutations in that process he is overriding normal cellular functioning. So, what is your evidence for this grand assertion, and how come biologists haven't noticed this; think carefully before answering, my son is a cell biologist. What you are expecting us to believe is that God is secretively intervening in his own natural order to the tune of billions of interventions per second worldwide to guide the development of the human genome across dispersed populations. So if he is targeting the genes of Europeans to alter skin pigmentation why does has not also used that mechanism to eradicate the heritable pathologies in the human genome. He could just as easily target the CAG trinucleotide repeat that gives us neurodegenerative disease like Huntington's. Is he just not bothered about such things ?
-
So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.
There's nothing controversial about that. Whales evolved from land bound mammals. The evidence is incontrovertible.
-
Even the pope goes for evolution, isn't he supposed to be infallible, so there!!
-
There's nothing controversial about that. Whales evolved from land bound mammals. The evidence is incontrovertible.
OK. Let's see your evidence. I have done a bit of homework and found this:
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Currently, the earliest fossil of a baleen whale is dated at I think about 36 million years old. Its supposed ancestors, the pakicetids, are thought to have lived between 52-48 million years ago. That's a difference of 12-16 million years, which is a long time - conceivably long enough for what you think happened, even though a vast number of anatomical and physiological changes had to occur. But how do you know that Pakicetids didn't simply go extinct without leaving any living relatives, rather than turn into whales? Have you considered this possibility and if so, on what basis would you dismiss it?
-
Spud, try reading this. It gives a lot more detail, and describes the timeline of discoveries made which finally clinched the idea that whales descended from land mammals.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/
-
OK. Let's see your evidence.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/the-evolution-of-whales/
http://stories.anmm.gov.au/whale-evolution/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
I have done a bit of homework and found
this:https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Currently, the earliest fossil of a baleen whale is dated at I think about 36 million years old. Its supposed ancestors, the pakicetids, are thought to have lived between 52-48 million years ago. That's a difference of 12-16 million years, which is a long time - conceivably long enough for what you think happened, even though a vast number of anatomical and physiological changes had to occur. But how do you know that Pakicetids didn't simply go extinct without leaving any living relatives, rather than turn into whales? Have you considered this possibility and if so, on what basis would you dismiss it?
And you think no fossils have been found to cover the gap?
-
A fully aquatic whale jawbone found in Antarctica in 2011 made descent from Pakicetus much less likely, as it was dated to 49 mya.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/ancient-whale-jawbone-found-antarctica/#.W1Nqb9QrJkg
-
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/the-evolution-of-whales/
http://stories.anmm.gov.au/whale-evolution/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
And you think no fossils have been found to cover the gap?
It says this could suggest that whales evolved more quickly than previousl thought, not that thay evolution is less likelym
-
Maeght,
If it is 49my old then it is older than most of the supposed links between it and land mammals, making its evolution from them not unlikely but impossible.
-
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Currently, the earliest fossil of a baleen whale is dated at I think about 36 million years old. Its supposed ancestors, the pakicetids, are thought to have lived between 52-48 million years ago. That's a difference of 12-16 million years, which is a long time - conceivably long enough for what you think happened, even though a vast number of anatomical and physiological changes had to occur. But how do you know that Pakicetids didn't simply go extinct without leaving any living relatives, rather than turn into whales? Have you considered this possibility and if so, on what basis would you dismiss it?
A fully aquatic whale jawbone found in Antarctica in 2011 made descent from Pakicetus much less likely, as it was dated to 49 mya.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/ancient-whale-jawbone-found-antarctica/#.W1Nqb9QrJkg
Maeght,
If it is 49my old then it is older than most of the supposed links between it and land mammals, making its evolution from them not unlikely but impossible.
Whales didn't evolve from Pakicetus, as the page you originally quoted from makes quite clear:
In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
-
Maeght,
If it is 49my old then it is older than most of the supposed links between it and land mammals, making its evolution from them not unlikely but impossible.
Which shows you have misunderstood the article.
-
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Whales didn't evolve from Pakicetus, as the page you originally quoted from makes quite clear:
No doubt there are fossils of their common ancestor, then.
-
So, Stranger and Maeght, we have this statement:
"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
That implies that all the animals in the 'evogram' are related, ie they have common ancestry. Therefore there also ought to be fossils of their DIRECT ancestors. So until such a fossil is found, the only thing that can be inferred is that those animals share certain similarities (eg they could all swim, or they all breathed air using lungs).
Assuming no older fossils of the land mammals like Pakicetus will be found, there is a serious problem because the sequence displayed in the article has been changed: we now have a fossil of an aquatic whale that is almost as old as the animal at the beginning of the sequence.
The article is therefore out of date and needs to be revised.
-
So, Stranger and Maeght, we have this statement:
"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
That implies that all the animals in the 'evogram' are related, ie they have common ancestry. Therefore there also ought to be fossils of their DIRECT ancestors. So until such a fossil is found, the only thing that can be inferred is that those animals share certain similarities (eg they could all swim/they all breathed using lungs).
Assuming no older fossils of the land mammals like Pakicetus will be found, there is a serious problem because the sequence displayed in the article has been changed: we now have a fossil of an aquatic whale that is almost as old as the animal at the beginning of the sequence.
The article is therefore out of date and needs to be revised.
Science is always open to knew evidence. Our understanding of such evolutionary trees is constantly being improved and refined. I have never claimed it is complete or certain, but such new discoveries do not cause those who work in the field and who fully understand the topic (I have never claimed to be an expert) to reach the same conclusion as you did. There is, I understand, a huge amount of evidence to support evolution by natural selection and a discovery such as this does not falsify the theory but means our understanding of the story and our knowledge has increased.
-
That implies that all the animals in the 'evogram' are related, ie they have common ancestry. Therefore there also ought to be fossils of their DIRECT ancestors.
There's no 'ought' about it - fossilisation is a rare event, there is no surprise that we don't have a complete record.
Assuming no older fossils of the land mammals like Pakicetus will be found, there is a serious problem because the sequence displayed in the article has been changed: we now have a fossil of an aquatic whale that is almost as old as the animal at the beginning of the sequence.
The article is therefore out of date and needs to be revised.
As Maeght has said, these sequences get revised all the time as new evidence emerges. None of this is as much as a pinprick in to the extensive evidence for evolution by natural selection and common descent. We can tell the hippopotamus and whale are related and approximately how long ago they had a common ancestor, just from genetics. In fact, the entire case for evolution could be made from genetic alone, without a single fossil.
-
There's no 'ought' about it - fossilisation is a rare event, there is no surprise that we don't have a complete record.
I'm not in a position to comment about genetics, as I automatically switch off as soon as anyone mentions the word (although I might open one eye and murmur that genetic mutations are often harmful). Regarding the fossil record, though, I would agree if you said that a fossil resembling a currently extant species could be an ancestor of that species, but when the fossil is extinct, there is no direct evidence and it is pure speculation to suggest they are related.
Consider all the changes that have to occur to get from land mammals to living whales. Take blubber, for example. IIRC we have fossils of so-called whales that kept warm using their fur, and we have fossils of actual whales that had blubber. There is only one or the other. We can't say the common ancestor with fur gradually morphed into an animal with blubber, because there is no fossil evidence for this. Instead, what we observe is sudden appearance of blubber.
-
I'm not in a position to comment about genetics, as I automatically switch off as soon as anyone mentions the word
So you have a closed mind. Why should anyone bother to discuss this with you?
-
I'm not in a position to comment about genetics, as I automatically switch off as soon as anyone mentions the word.
You can’t just dismiss some of the most important evidence just because you refuse to understand it.
-
I'm not in a position to comment about genetics, as I automatically switch off as soon as anyone mentions the word (although I might open one eye and murmur that genetic mutations are often harmful). Regarding the fossil record, though, I would agree if you said that a fossil resembling a currently extant species could be an ancestor of that species, but when the fossil is extinct, there is no direct evidence and it is pure speculation to suggest they are related.
Consider all the changes that have to occur to get from land mammals to living whales. Take blubber, for example. IIRC we have fossils of so-called whales that kept warm using their fur, and we have fossils of actual whales that had blubber. There is only one or the other. We can't say the common ancestor with fur gradually morphed into an animal with blubber, because there is no fossil evidence for this. Instead, what we observe is sudden appearance of blubber.
As others have said, you can't ignore genetics if looking to discuss the evidence for evolution.
-
So you have a closed mind. Why should anyone bother to discuss this with you?
I don't think I have intelligence for evolutionary genetics. The little about genetics I did at one stage learn was in the context of disease, and I never thought the idea that beneficial mutations could lead to macroevolution was worth bothering with. It seems unlikely. The idea that environmental pressures would cause all those anatomical and physiological changes to occur seems like pseudo-science. But having checked out the extinct animals thought to be related to whales that have been discovered, I realize I don't know much about them.
-
I don't think I have intelligence for evolutionary genetics.
Does this not at the very least suggest it's not a subject you should be bloviating about?
-
I don't think I have intelligence for evolutionary genetics. The little about genetics I did at one stage learn was in the context of disease, and I never thought the idea that beneficial mutations could lead to macroevolution was worth bothering with. It seems unlikely. The idea that environmental pressures would cause all those anatomical and physiological changes to occur seems like pseudo-science. But having checked out the extinct animals thought to be related to whales that have been discovered, I realize I don't know much about them.
So are you going to stop trying to argue against the science of evolution?
-
So are you going to stop trying to argue against the science of evolution?
I will read about the extinct animals thought to be related to whales.
-
I will read about the extinct animals thought to be related to whales.
That's good. Do some reading about the genetic evidence too.
-
Does this not at the very least suggest it's not a subject you should be bloviating about?
The only examples of beneficial mutations I can think of are sickle cell anaemia and the bacteria that can digest plastic. However, the sickle cell carrier is no less human than a non-carrier, and likewise for the bacteria. No evolution, just adaption.
-
The only examples of beneficial mutations I can think of...
I've no idea why you think your personal knowledge has any bearing on the matter.
However, the sickle cell carrier is no less human than a non-carrier, and likewise for the bacteria. No evolution, just adaption.
FFS, what do you think evolution is? How do you think large evolutionary change comes about except by lots of little 'adaptations'?
-
FFS, what do you think evolution is? How do you think large evolutionary change comes about except by lots of little 'adaptations'?
At the moment, I don't think large evolutionary change comes about. Lots of little adaptations have not been observed happening; its a bit like being paid for every 15 minutes you are logged in, but doing the job in 10 minutes then logging out. Your bank balance will always stay the same.
-
At the moment, I don't think large evolutionary change comes about.
Then you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence.
Lots of little adaptations have not been observed happening
You just said that adaptation did happen (#171) - make up your mind.
...its a bit like being paid for every 15 minutes you are logged in, but doing the job in 10 minutes then logging out. Your bank balance will always stay the same.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
-
Then you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence.
What evidence? The trunk that supports all the branches of the whale family tree? The trunk you assume exists (#156)?
You just said that adaptation did happen (#171) - make up your mind.
Apologies. I was thinking of adaptations that when added to each other would change fundamental characteristics.
-
What evidence?
Is this even a serious question? There's plenty online and many good books. If I thought you were serious I'd link some but if you've been posting on this long, I'm sure it's all been said before.
However the big clue that the evidence is overwhelming is that almost all of the people who study it will tell you that it is and the tiny minority who disagree consist in the most part of people with a religious vested interest in it being wrong. Compare to when the only people saying smoking wasn't bad for you were people who worked for the tobacco companies.
Here's an honest creationist saying that there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution: The truth about evolution (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html).
Apologies. I was thinking of adaptations that when added to each other would change fundamental characteristics.
What do you think stops lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones?
-
Is this even a serious question? There's plenty online and many good books. If I thought you were serious I'd link some but if you've been posting on this long, I'm sure it's all been said before.
However the big clue that the evidence is overwhelming is that almost all of the people who study it will tell you that it is and the tiny minority who disagree consist in the most part of people with a religious vested interest in it being wrong. Compare to when the only people saying smoking wasn't bad for you were people who worked for the tobacco companies.
Here's an honest creationist saying that there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution: The truth about evolution (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html).
What do you think stops lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones?
Hi Mr Stranger,
Okay, having done a bit of research I get the feeling that we need to define what we mean by "large evolutionary change", which you say there is overwhelming evidence for.
There are two possible definitions:
- change within recognizable families of organisms, such as the evolution of ancient wolves into the breeds of dog we have today.
- the kind of change that would involve, for example, a common carnivorous ancestor giving rise to Canidae (wolves and foxes), Ursidae (bears), Otariidae (sea lions) and other so-called "Caniformia".
I was talking about the latter definition, which at the moment I do not see evidence for; whereas I suspect you were thinking more of the former, for which of course there is lots of evidence. Would you agree?
-
Hi Mr Stranger,
Okay, having done a bit of research I get the feeling that we need to define what we mean by "large evolutionary change", which you say there is overwhelming evidence for.
There are two possible definitions:
- change within recognizable families of organisms, such as the evolution of ancient wolves into the breeds of dog we have today.
- the kind of change that would involve, for example, a common carnivorous ancestor giving rise to Canidae (wolves and foxes), Ursidae (bears), Otariidae (sea lions) and other so-called "Caniformia".
I was talking about the latter definition, which at the moment I do not see evidence for; whereas I suspect you were thinking more of the former, for which of course there is lots of evidence. Would you agree?
By "doing a bit of research" I take it you mean "reading bollocks on 'Answers in Genesis'".
-
Okay, having done a bit of research I get the feeling that we need to define what we mean by "large evolutionary change", which you say there is overwhelming evidence for.
There are two possible definitions:
- change within recognizable families of organisms, such as the evolution of ancient wolves into the breeds of dog we have today.
- the kind of change that would involve, for example, a common carnivorous ancestor giving rise to Canidae (wolves and foxes), Ursidae (bears), Otariidae (sea lions) and other so-called "Caniformia".
I was talking about the latter definition, which at the moment I do not see evidence for; whereas I suspect you were thinking more of the former, for which of course there is lots of evidence. Would you agree?
I see you didn't answer my question, comment on the creationist telling you that there is lots of evidence for evolution, or on the fact that almost all the poeple who question evolution have a vested interest.
There really isn't a qualitative difference between your 'two definition', which is why I asked you what you think prevents lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones.
There is overwhelming evidence for common decent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) - that is all life on Earth evolving from a common ancestor. The evidence really is beyond rational doubt, which is why those who question it tend to be ignorant of the subject, have a strong religious reason to reject it, or both.
-
By "doing a bit of research" I take it you mean "reading bollocks on 'Answers in Genesis'".
No, Wikipedia.
-
I see you didn't answer my question, comment on the creationist telling you that there is lots of evidence for evolution, or on the fact that almost all the poeple who question evolution have a vested interest.
There really isn't a qualitative difference between your 'two definition', which is why I asked you what you think prevents lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones.
There is overwhelming evidence for common decent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) - that is all life on Earth evolving from a common ancestor. The evidence really is beyond rational doubt, which is why those who question it tend to be ignorant of the subject, have a strong religious reason to reject it, or both.
None of the evidence presented there is proof. Moreover, it is all falsified by living fossils - in my opinion. And by other elephants in the room.
-
None of the evidence presented there is proof.
Science doesn't do proof.
Moreover, it is all falsified by living fossils - in my opinion.
And why should your opinion be significant when the vast majority of those qualified in the relevant fields and who work in those fields don't share your opinion?
And by other elephants in the room.
Such as?
-
None of the evidence presented there is proof.
This demonstrates an ignorance of science.
Moreover, it is all falsified by living fossils - in my opinion.
This demonstrates an ignorance of the theory of evolution.
-
Science doesn't do proof.
So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then? Of course it does proof.
And why should your opinion be significant when the vast majority of those qualified in the relevant fields and who work in those fields don't share your opinion?
If I knew something they didn't know or couldn't explain, then my opinion would be significant.
Such as?
How about the lack of erosion between geological strata that were supposedly deposited millions of years apart? This demonstrates that the current dating system for the rocks is in error.
-
So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then? Of course it does proof.If I knew something they didn't know or couldn't explain, then my opinion would be significant. How about the lack of erosion between geological strata that were supposedly deposited millions of years apart? This demonstrates that the current dating system for the rocks is in error.
Science does not do proof.
That is mathematics.
-
This demonstrates an ignorance of the theory of evolution.
Why did dragonflies remain basically unchanged, except for size, during both the Permian and Cretacious extinctions, which would have put great environmental pressure on them?
This and many other examples demonstrate that the concept of evolution of species from simple to complex is simply wrong. When under environmental pressure, creatures either survived and stayed basically the same, or went extinct.
-
Science does not do proof.
So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then?
-
You seem to be unacquainted with the concept of 'proof' in the formal sense.
I'm not amazed.
-
So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then?
Yes, that could be the case.
But science has a good model of how the Earth orbits the Sun, and so far all the evidence fits this model.
If you have some evidence that does not fit this model, then the scientific model will be scrapped.
Science, creates models from evidence (or guesses), and the model makes predictions.
If the predictions do not match reality, then the model is wrong.
If reality seems to follow the model THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE MODEL IF PROVED CORRECT. It just means that it has not been proved wrong yet.
Do you have any evidence that the Sun orbits the Earth, or does your evidence fit the existing model?
-
You seem to be unacquainted with the concept of 'proof' in the formal sense.
I'm not amazed.
I can prove the earth is not flat just by watching the way a ship disappears over the horizon. How is that not proof?
-
If you have some evidence that does not fit this model, then the scientific model will be scrapped.
As there is evidence that does not fit the evolution model (see above), shouldn't that model be scrapped?
-
So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then? Of course it does proof.
No it doesn't. Of course some of its conclusions such as the one you mention and evolution from a common ancestor have such overwhelming evidence that they are pretty much beyond doubt but it's not the case that sceince can provide absolute proof.
If I knew something they didn't know or couldn't explain, then my opinion would be significant.
Apart from the dishonest idiocy of sites like Answers in Genesis, what on earth would lead you to believe that you would know something that could bring into question one of the best established theories in science that all the world's experts (except a tiny, tiny minority who mostly have an obvious vested interest) have overlooked?
Get real.
How about the lack of erosion between geological strata that were supposedly deposited millions of years apart? This demonstrates that the current dating system for the rocks is in error.
Obviously not - see above.
Sorry but I really can't be bothered to look this up. I've wasted an awful lot of my life chasing down silly nonsense from dishonest creationists (okay, they aren't all dishonest, some have been taken in by the ignorant or dishonest) and they are always obviously wrong when you get to the bottom of the matter. I've never seen a creationist website that isn't full of misrepresentation, distortion, and blatant falsehoods. I'm frankly sick of feeling the need for a shower after visiting them, they are so full of shit.
-
As there is evidence that does not fit the evolution model (see above), shouldn't that model be scrapped?
How do you know it does not fit the model?
What relevant qualifications do you have to make that assessment.
Send the evidence to a biology department at a local university, and they might be helpful and show you where you are wrong.
Or, you will get a nobel prize.
Please remember, many scientists would LOVE to prove evolution wrong.
-
So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then? Of course it does proof.If I knew something they didn't know or couldn't explain, then my opinion would be significant. How about the lack of erosion between geological strata that were supposedly deposited millions of years apart? This demonstrates that the current dating system for the rocks is in error.
Science works by making observations, making measurements, deriving hypotheses and theories to explain those observations ans doing experiments to test the theory. If observations are made which invalidate the theory then the theory is scrapped or modified. Such observations could be potentially made at any time so theories are never proven. You are talking about observations and facts not proofs.
If you knew something which others didn't etc then that would not be an opinion would it.
What erosion evidence would you expect?
-
As there is evidence that does not fit the evolution model (see above), shouldn't that model be scrapped?
There isn't any.
-
How do you know it does not fit the model?
Common sense tells me it is unlikely that some species changed their form and their habitat (sea to land, land to sea, land to air - inferred by evolutionists from similarities in body structure) while others have appeared suddenly in the fossil record and stayed basically the same over hundreds of millions of years (demonstrated through comparisons of fossils with living species)
-
Common sense tells me it is unlikely that some species changed their form and their habitat (sea to land, land to sea, land to air - inferred from similarities in body structure) while others have appeared suddenly in the fossil record and stayed basically the same over hundreds of millions of years (demonstrated through comparisons of fossils with living species)
Ah, good old common sense. The answer to the question should have been that you don't know.
-
Ah, good old common sense. The answer to the question should have been that you don't know.
If the evolution model predicts that some species would change form and habitat while others would stay the same, then I accept I am wrong. So does it?
-
What erosion evidence would you expect?
The kind of erosion we see at the surface.
-
Common sense tells me it is unlikely that some species changed their form and their habitat (sea to land, land to sea, land to air - inferred by evolutionists from similarities in body structure) while others have appeared suddenly in the fossil record and stayed basically the same over hundreds of millions of years (demonstrated through comparisons of fossils with living species)
The first isn't an inference form just one piece of evidence and the notion that it's unlikely that some lineages stay largely the same while others change is just more evidence that you don't understand the theory you're are attempting to criticise. Why do you think it unlikely?
If the evolution model predicts that some species would change form and habitat while others would stay the same, then I accept I am wrong. So does it?
Yes.
-
If the evolution model predicts that some species would change form and habitat while others would stay the same, then I accept I am wrong. So does it?
The evolutionary model predicts different rates of evolutionary change. If a species is well adapted for its environment there will be little evolutionary change. So yes.
-
The kind of erosion we see at the surface.
Which type of rocks are you referring to ?
-
The evolutionary model predicts different rates of evolutionary change. If a species is well adapted for its environment there will be little evolutionary change. So yes.
Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.
-
The first isn't an inference form just one piece of evidence and the notion that it's unlikely that some lineages stay largely the same while others change is just more evidence that you don't understand the theory you're are attempting to criticise. Why do you think it unlikely?
It was just a hunch; however, Maeght is about to prove me wrong by showing that the lineages that changed were poorly adapted to their environments.
-
Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.
The fossil record and genetics show evolutionary change in response to changing environments, driven by individuals within a species not being as well adapted to the change in the environment as others. Gradual change as a result of changing and different environments. When the environment changes too rapidly then species become extinct. That is what the evidence shows.
-
Which type of rocks are you referring to ?
How about these:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/CoastalrockintheJurassi_Coast_DorsetEngland22263892945298045725812.jpg
Eroded upper surface; flat, uneroded layers beneath.
-
There are two possible definitions:
- change within recognizable families of organisms, such as the evolution of ancient wolves into the breeds of dog we have today.
- the kind of change that would involve, for example, a common carnivorous ancestor giving rise to Canidae (wolves and foxes), Ursidae (bears), Otariidae (sea lions) and other so-called "Caniformia".
I was talking about the latter definition, which at the moment I do not see evidence for; whereas I suspect you were thinking more of the former, for which of course there is lots of evidence. Would you agree?
And the former you would, no doubt, consider to be accommodated under that wondrously informative definition "kinds", from the Book of Genesis.
Could you let us know what 'kinds' you think Tiktaalik and Archaeopterix belong to?
-
How about these:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/CoastalrockintheJurassi_Coast_DorsetEngland22263892945298045725812.jpg
Eroded upper surface; flat, uneroded layers beneath.
What do you think the lower strata should have been eroded by?
-
The fossil record and genetics show evolutionary change in response to changing environments, driven by individuals within a species not being as well adapted to the change in the environment as others. Gradual change as a result of changing and different environments. When the environment changes too rapidly then species become extinct. That is what the evidence shows.
So what you initially meant was: if the environment changes then those species that are able to adapt to the change survive, and those that can't go extinct. So the dragonfly has been adapting to change for nearly 300 million years while remaining in the same form and habitat, whereas over the same time period reptiles evolved into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals
-
What do you think the lower strata should have been eroded by?
Wind and/or water.
-
So what you initially meant was: if the environment changes then those species that are able to adapt to the change survive, and those that can't go extinct. So the dragonfly has been adapting to change for nearly 300 million years while remaining in the same form and habitat, whereas over the same time period reptiles evolved into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals
Yes (see my earlier post).
-
Wind and/or water.
Which would need the surface of the lower strata to have been exposed to wind and flowing water after formation and before having other rock strata formed on top. Yes? Do you think this was the case in the rocks you referenced earlier?
-
Yes (see my earlier post).
So can the changes in environment which caused the evolution of reptiles into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals be identified?
-
Which would need the surface of the lower strata to have been exposed to wind and flowing water after formation and before having other rock strata formed on top. Yes? Do you think this was the case in the rocks you referenced earlier?
No. The problem is that there are in some other places flat contact points between strata that are thought to have been laid down millions of years apart, over which time one would expect the lower one to have been exposed to erosion at some point. The classic answer is that they were covered over for almost all of that time, by layers which were then eroded and disappeared.
-
No. The problem is that there are in some other places flat contact points between strata that are thought to have been laid down millions of years apart, over which time one would expect the lower one to have been exposed to erosion at some point. The classic answer is that they were covered over for almost all of that time, by layers which were then eroded and disappeared.
No to what? The rocks you referenced were laid down over very long periods under the sea, then were lifted up later such that the upper starata could then be eroded by wind, rain etc. The classic answer you refer to seems reasonable but I am sure is not the only explaination. I'm not a geologist - but then nor are you.
-
So can the changes in environment which caused the evolution of reptiles into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals be identified?
You seem to have this picture of sudden evolutionary changes with clear, sudden, changes in environment, rather than gradual changes due to changes in the gene pool of a species as habitats and conditions varied gradually.
-
I can prove the earth is not flat just by watching the way a ship disappears over the horizon. How is that not proof?
It could be explained by the hypothesis that all ships a certain distance away from you are sinking.
-
Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.
The rhinoceros is on the brink of extinction because it is not well adapted to its environment.
-
So what you initially meant was: if the environment changes then those species that are able to adapt to the change survive, and those that can't go extinct. So the dragonfly has been adapting to change for nearly 300 million years while remaining in the same form and habitat, whereas over the same time period reptiles evolved into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals
I think one of your misunderstandings is that, in the context of evolution, there isn't such a thing as the (singular) environment. Each population has its own environment (apart from anything else, its environment includes the other species in its physical location, in particular what it eats and what eats it). Whether a particular lineage changes depends on a number of factors, including changes in its environment. A population may be at a "local maxima" of adaptation, in other words any changes small enough to be at all probable may reduce its fitness (suitability to its environment). Its environment may change enough to change that situation or not, or it may change too fast anyway, so the population goes extinct. It may change but not in a way that changes the local maxima. So called "living fossils" are comparatively rare, as one would expect, but they in no way contradict evolution.
-
Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.
The Wooly Mammoth was well adapted to its environment.
Then that environment changed at the end of the last ice age.
Then it wasn't well adapted.
Then it became extinct.
-
Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.
The dodo lived on the island of Mauritius. It was very well adapted to its environment. Its adaptation was so secure that its breeding rate was very low.
Then its environment changed: a new predatory species was introduced - homo sapiens.
Homo sapiens sought food and found the dodo an easy prey. The dodo's environment had experienced a major change to which the dodo was no longer well adapted. It became extinct.
-
It could be explained by the hypothesis that all ships a certain distance away from you are sinking.
Until the ship you were watching comes back...
-
The dodo lived on the island of Mauritius. It was very well adapted to its environment. Its adaptation was so secure that its breeding rate was very low.
Then its environment changed: a new predatory species was introduced - homo sapiens.
Homo sapiens sought food and found the dodo an easy prey. The dodo's environment had experienced a major change to which the dodo was no longer well adapted. It became extinct.
It didn't evolve, then. Neither did the wooly mammoth, nor does the rhino.
-
It didn't evolve, then. Neither did the wooly mammoth, nor does the rhino.
Because the environmental changes were too rapid - evolution is a slow gradual change. That is pretty basic when it comes to an understanding of evolutionary theory.
-
It's quite weird watching someone who doesn't understand evolution, criticize it. I suppose it's a kind of reverse engineering, "I don't like evolution, so I'll make up some objections".
-
No to what? The rocks you referenced were laid down over very long periods under the sea, then were lifted up later such that the upper starata could then be eroded by wind, rain etc. The classic answer you refer to seems reasonable but I am sure is not the only explaination. I'm not a geologist - but then nor are you.
I gave the picture of the Dorset coast to show the irregular upper surface of the rocks, caused by erosion. When millions of years of strata are missing between two layers, one would expect the sort of erosion shown in the picture to have occurred, so that the join would be irregular instead of smooth.
You seem to have this picture of sudden evolutionary changes with clear, sudden, changes in environment, rather than gradual changes due to changes in the gene pool of a species as habitats and conditions varied gradually.
I appreciate that there are many ways the "environment" could change. What we observe in nature, though, is lots of variations of the same family depending on the environment. So we get polar bears and grizzly bears, each adapted to its environment but clearly related to the other. Finches with different sized beaks depending on the kind of seeds available to eat, tortoises with different shaped shells depending on the type of vegetation they eat.
We never observe lizards learning how to fly, or dogs learning to live in the sea.
-
It didn't evolve, then. Neither did the wooly mammoth, nor does the rhino.
Your request:
Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.
Both Sebastian Coe and I answered your question as it was posed.
In each case the species concerned was well-adapted to its environment but failed because when there was a significant change to its environment its adaptation became inadequate. Evolution is characterised by large scale extinction due to environmental change.
-
It's quite weird watching someone who doesn't understand evolution, criticize it. I suppose it's a kind of reverse engineering, "I don't like evolution, so I'll make up some objections".
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than knowledge."
- a certain Mr. C. Darwin.
-
I appreciate that there are many ways the "environment" could change. What we observe in nature, though, is lots of variations of the same family depending on the environment. So we get polar bears and grizzly bears, each adapted to its environment but clearly related to the other. Finches with different sized beaks depending on the kind of seeds available to eat, tortoises with different shaped shells depending on the type of vegetation they eat.
And we have overwhelming evidence of much larger changes over evolutionary timescales. I'll ask again as you never answered: what do you think stops lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones?
Why do you think pretty much every scientist who actually studies these things thinks there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and most of those that don't have an obvious vested interest?
Why do you think this creationist agrees that the evidence is strong: The truth about evolution (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html)?
We never observe lizards learning how to fly...
Draco (genus) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(genus))
-
I gave the picture of the Dorset coast to show the irregular upper surface of the rocks, caused by erosion. When millions of years of strata are missing between two layers, one would expect the sort of erosion shown in the picture to have occurred, so that the join would be irregular instead of smooth.
Only if those strata were exposed to the same conditions as the eroded layers you are referring to. If they were under the sea, forming slowly, with other starta being formed at a latter date ontop, without the lower strata ever being exposed to wind, rain etc then they wouldn't show erosion. That's fairly obvious isn't it?
I appreciate that there are many ways the "environment" could change. What we observe in nature, though, is lots of variations of the same family depending on the environment. So we get polar bears and grizzly bears, each adapted to its environment but clearly related to the other. Finches with different sized beaks depending on the kind of seeds available to eat, tortoises with different shaped shells depending on the type of vegetation they eat.
We never observe lizards learning how to fly, or dogs learning to live in the sea.
Wow.
-
Until the ship you were watching comes back...
Clearly all ships are secretly submarines
-
We never observe lizards learning how to fly, or dogs learning to live in the sea.
The fossil record for dinosaurs evolving into birds is looking pretty good at the moment.
-
Clearly all ships are secretly submarines
I'll go up in a balloon then :P
-
I'll go up in a balloon then :P
I think you'll find that if you go up in a balloon, in order to keep the secret, the ships will not submerge until they are much further away.
-
I think you'll find that if you go up in a balloon, in order to keep the secret, the ships will not submerge until they are much further away.
Like QM they 'know' when a measurement is being taken
-
I think you'll find that if you go up in a balloon, in order to keep the secret, the ships will not submerge until they are much further away.
If I go up into space, quite so straight the horizon will not look, Hm?
-
If I go up into space, quite so straight the horizon will not look, Hm?
True, and we think that is because the Earth is a sphere.
But, I am sure I could come up with some zany explanation to get around it.
The flat Earth society know all this stuff, and still think the Earth is flat.
But you are doing the right thing, testing the model with some experiment. If the experiment agrees with the prediction of the model, then the model survives as not being wrong. But, it is never PROVED to be correct.
More information may come along at some point.
The theory of gravity is a case in point. it will pass all the tests that you can throw at it. But, it is now known to be not so much wrong, but not completely correct. The model it creates is brilliant, and allows us to put people into orbit, or land craft on other bodies in the solar system.
It can do all this by being a close approximation to the truth, but not completely correct.
-
True, and we think that is because the Earth is a sphere.
But, I am sure I could come up with some zany explanation to get around it.
The flat Earth society know all this stuff, and still think the Earth is flat.
But you are doing the right thing, testing the model with some experiment. If the experiment agrees with the prediction of the model, then the model survives as not being wrong. But, it is never PROVED to be correct.
More information may come along at some point.
The theory of gravity is a case in point. it will pass all the tests that you can throw at it. But, it is now known to be not so much wrong, but not completely correct. The model it creates is brilliant, and allows us to put people into orbit, or land craft on other bodies in the solar system.
It can do all this by being a close approximation to the truth, but not completely correct.
But some people have gone even further in a space ship and seen that it's a rotating sphere. How is that not proof?
-
But some people have gone even further in a space ship and seen that it's a rotating sphere. How is that not proof?
The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration. This likely began during the Cold War's 'Space Race', in which the USSR and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the other's supposed achievements. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the conspiracy is most likely motivated by greed rather than political gains, and using only some of their funding to continue to fake space travel saves a lot of money to embezzle for themselves.
In light of the above, please note that we are not suggesting that space agencies are aware that the earth is flat and actively covering the fact up. They depict the earth as being round simply because that is what they expect it to be.
-- Flat Earth Society (https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#People_have_been_into_space._How_have_they_not_discovered_that_the_earth_is_flat.3F)
The Flat Earth Society are about as believable as Answers in Genesis.
-
If I go up into space, quite so straight the horizon will not look, Hm?
That’s the special glass they have to use in space ship windows, It distorted the Earthg to make the horizon look curved.
-
But some people have gone even further in a space ship and seen that it's a rotating sphere. How is that not proof?
Perhaps they are not telling the truth?
Perhaps they were in a simulation?
Clue, you can always invent some absurd explanation. Science does NOT do proofs. Read a science book and quote one that says science does.
Proof is only in mathematics.
-
Perhaps they are not telling the truth?
Perhaps they were in a simulation?
Clue, you can always invent some absurd explanation. Science does NOT do proofs. Read a science book and quote one that says science does.
Proof is only in mathematics.
As with some other words, there is confusion between the strict, technical sense and the popular, everyday sense. NS is right that nothing is ever absolutely proven in science, in the strict sense, but in the everyday sense, the sphericality of the earth, like the truth of evolution, is proven. It's to do with the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning: inductive tells us about the real world, but is never 100% certain; the fact that the sun has risen at a predictable time each day for the whole of my life strongly suggests that it will do sotomorrow, but it's not quite certain: some cosmic disaster could happen between now and then. On the other hand, deductive reasoning, which is to do with maths and logic, tells me that 2+2=4. That is absolutely certain, but tells me nothing about the real world, because numbers are abstract concepts, not things.
OK, some smart-arse shoot me down in flames.
-
OK, some smart-arse shoot me down in flames.
Where is Sassy when you need her?
-
As with some other words, there is confusion between the strict, technical sense and the popular, everyday sense. NS is right that nothing is ever absolutely proven in science, in the strict sense, but in the everyday sense, the sphericality of the earth, like the truth of evolution, is proven. It's to do with the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning: inductive tells us about the real world, but is never 100% certain; the fact that the sun has risen at a predictable time each day for the whole of my life strongly suggests that it will do sotomorrow, but it's not quite certain: some cosmic disaster could happen between now and then. On the other hand, deductive reasoning, which is to do with maths and logic, tells me that 2+2=4. That is absolutely certain, but tells me nothing about the real world, because numbers are abstract concepts, not things.
OK, some smart-arse shoot me down in flames.
In your example of the sun rising tomorrow because it did every day of your life, it follows that your observation of the rotating earth from space today and tomorrow proves that today it is a sphere; however, that may not be the case next week when I observe it, as it may then be oblong. If I see a football and an orange together I have proof they are the same shape; if I see the earth from space I have proof it is the same shape as things like oranges and footballs.
If I haven't seen it then I don't have proof, I guess.
-
In your example of the sun rising tomorrow because it did every day of your life, it follows that your observation of the rotating earth from space today and tomorrow proves that today it is a sphere; however, that may not be the case next week when I observe it, as it may then be oblong. If I see a football and an orange together I have proof they are the same shape; if I see the earth from space I have proof it is the same shape as things like oranges and footballs.
If I haven't seen it then I don't have proof, I guess.
There's no arguing with idiots. I give up.
-
In your example of the sun rising tomorrow because it did every day of your life, it follows that your observation of the rotating earth from space today and tomorrow proves that today it is a sphere; however, that may not be the case next week when I observe it, as it may then be oblong. If I see a football and an orange together I have proof they are the same shape; if I see the earth from space I have proof it is the same shape as things like oranges and footballs.
If I haven't seen it then I don't have proof, I guess.
Please read a science book!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/
-
Spud, nothing is ever proven in the scientific method. In some cases there may be an over whelming amount of evidence that supports a theory such that in common parlence it may be considered proven but science always keeps open the possibility that new evidence may invalidate the theory. That is fundamental to how science works. Just accept it or do some research, please.
-
Most people will agree that evolution is seen to be a slow process involving millions of years to bring about substantial developments in species.
The evolution of the human body as we now know it spanned several millions of years from its ape like ancestors.
But consider the evolution of the human mind.
The evidence of the consciously driven creative abilities of humans dates from just a few thousand years ago, which on the evolutionary scale of time implies that the profound development of the modern human mind occurred in the blink of an eyelid. There is no evidence of a gradual development, just a sudden, instantaneous transition.
-
Only if those strata were exposed to the same conditions as the eroded layers you are referring to. If they were under the sea, forming slowly, with other starta being formed at a latter date ontop, without the lower strata ever being exposed to wind, rain etc then they wouldn't show erosion. That's fairly obvious isn't it?
That is a zany explanation because you know that if the lower of the two strata had been under the sea for millions of years then more sediments would have collected on top of it during that time. I say zany explanation because it is comparable to jeremy's ships that are also secretly submarines. An equally zany explanation is to say that the missing strata were obviously eroded before new ones later formed.
-
And we have overwhelming evidence of much larger changes over evolutionary timescales. I'll ask again as you never answered: what do you think stops lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones?
Why do you think pretty much every scientist who actually studies these things thinks there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and most of those that don't have an obvious vested interest?
Why do you think this creationist agrees that the evidence is strong: The truth about evolution (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html)?
Draco (genus) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(genus))
Your lizard is gliding. Is it learning how to fly?
I'm not really interested in arguments that rely on most people believing something.
The default position should be that large scale changes do not occur. The majority of fossils demonstrate sudden appearance/no apparent ancestry followed by stasis (no change in basic form). Even a hundred thousand years is long enough for large scale changes, but modern man hasn't changed much.
When you see two fossils that look completely different but share a similar plan, eg they both have a backbone, then saying they are related is zany, where "zany" = like jeremy's ship-subs.
-
That is a zany explanation because you know that if the lower of the two strata had been under the sea for millions of years then more sediments would have collected on top of it during that time. I say zany explanation because it is comparable to jeremy's ships that are also secretly submarines. An equally zany explanation is to say that the missing strata were obviously eroded before new ones later formed.
Lets take this a step at a time as I think one of us is confused .....
What I am saying is that rocks such as those in the picture you showed are formed at the bottom of the sea. As conditions change the type of creatures living in the sea change so over long periods the type of rock can change and different strata form. The weight of subsequent layers on the earlier layers creating the rock starta we see. As rivers flow into the sea different materials are deposited on the sea bed. The lower strata would not show erosion by wind/rain etc since they have been formed slowly under the sea and never been exposed to wind/rain. At a later time earth movements threw the rocks up out of the sea. The upper layers then begin to erode due to rain/wind etc. The lower layers will not show such erosing. What is 'zany' about that?
-
Your lizard is gliding. Is it learning how to fly?
I'm not really interested in arguments that rely on most people believing something.
Scientists accepting the theory of evolution due to the overwhelming body of evidence for it is not an argument relying on people believing in something. The vast majority of people who are qualified in and work in the field of evolutionary biology and other fields which have a relevance to ToE accept the theory because of the evidence and their work, not due to a belief.
-
I'm not really interested in arguments that rely on most people believing something.
It's not about most people. When we are talking about almost all of those people who are experts in a field believing one thing, almost all of the those who disagree having an obvious vested interest, and when you are clearly rather ill-informed, it really should be giving you pause for thought.
As far as geology goes, here's some more reading for you: The Transformation of a Young-Earth Creationist (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Morton.html)
"Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from [Institute for Creation Research's] school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"
That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either. "
-
Lets take this a step at a time as I think one of us is confused .....
What I am saying is that rocks such as those in the picture you showed are formed at the bottom of the sea. As conditions change the type of creatures living in the sea change so over long periods the type of rock can change and different strata form. The weight of subsequent layers on the earlier layers creating the rock starta we see. As rivers flow into the sea different materials are deposited on the sea bed. The lower strata would not show erosion by wind/rain etc since they have been formed slowly under the sea and never been exposed to wind/rain. At a later time earth movements threw the rocks up out of the sea. The upper layers then begin to erode due to rain/wind etc. The lower layers will not show such erosing. What is 'zany' about that?
What you've missed is that in some rock formations there is 10 million years of strata missing between two formations, yet the contact point between them is smooth and regular. Assume the lower one was formed first. If it was at the bottom of the sea for 10 million years, new layers would have been deposited on top of it. If the sea receded for 10 million years leaving it exposed, there would be signs of erosion. I gave an example in the first post I wrote on this thread. The way this is explained is that sediments were deposited on top of the lower of the two layers, but they must have subsequently been eroded just before the upper of the two layers was deposited, so that the contact point is smooth.
-
What you've missed is that in some rock formations there is 10 million years of strata missing between two formations, yet the contact point between them is smooth and regular. Assume the lower one was formed first. If it was at the bottom of the sea for 10 million years, new layers would have been deposited on top of it. If the sea receded for 10 million years leaving it exposed, there would be signs of erosion. I gave an example in the first post I wrote on this thread. The way this is explained is that sediments were deposited on top of the lower of the two layers, but they must have subsequently been eroded just before the upper of the two layers was deposited, so that the contact point is smooth.
Right, so you are talking about unconformities, which is not what was in the last picture you showed.
In your first post on this thread you mention the Black Canyon Unconformity and from what I have read there is evidence of erosion in the lower layers. The type of erosion seen in unconformities depends exactly on the history - for example if the lower layers reside in a shallow sea for a period they will be eroded in a different way than if they have been exposed to wind/rain etc.
As with evolutionary theory, the vast mnajority of peole who are trained and work in this field see no issues with this. Why do you think that is exactly?
-
Most people will agree that evolution is seen to be a slow process involving millions of years to bring about substantial developments in species.
Not all, Alan. Ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?
The evolution of the human body as we now know it spanned several millions of years from its ape like ancestors.
No problem with that, on present evidence.
But consider the evolution of the human mind.
The evidence of the consciously driven creative abilities of humans dates from just a few thousand years ago, which on the evolutionary scale of time implies that the profound development of the modern human mind occurred in the blink of an eyelid. There is no evidence of a gradual development, just a sudden, instantaneous transition.
A few thousand years? Don't be ridiculous. Even if you just consider cave paintings, then even the famous ones at Lascaux are at least c17000 years old, and they are nowhere near the oldest. In fact the oldest known red hand stencil painting has been dated to c67000 years old and was most probably made by neanderthals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
And if you consider the evolution of artistic creativity, there are a range of discoveries which seem to point to this(e.g. beads. shells. creation of colour pigments, pattern art) which go back many tens of thousands of years. Even the 'Venus' figurine(a fairly common type of art object) can be dated back up to 27000 years ago.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815939/
-
Not all, Alan. Ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?
I understand it is a theory used to try to explain the lack of transitional fossils.
No problem with that, on present evidence.
A few thousand years? Don't be ridiculous. Even if you just consider cave paintings, then even the famous ones at Lascaux are at least c17000 years old, and they are nowhere near the oldest. In fact the oldest known red hand stencil painting has been dated to c67000 years old and was most probably made by neanderthals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
And if you consider the evolution of artistic creativity, there are a range of discoveries which seem to point to this(e.g. beads. shells. creation of colour pigments, pattern art) which go back many tens of thousands of years. Even the 'Venus' figurine(a fairly common type of art object) can be dated back up to 27000 years ago.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815939/
Tens of thousands of years is still an extremely short period in the evolutionary time scale. What I am saying is that the profound advance in the capabilities of the human mind was evidently not a gradual process in the evolution time line.
-
I think that you are being a little opaque here, Alan.
What do you mean by "mind"? How would you differentiate "mind" from "brain"?
-
Tens of thousands of years is still an extremely short period in the evolutionary time scale. What I am saying is that the profound advances in the capabilities of the human mind was evidently not a gradual process in the evolution time line.
Cultural evolution and biological evolution could be said to run at vastly different speeds. Brains are plastic; minds can be changed in an instant. Changes in nucleotide sequences on the other hand take many generations to spread through populations.
-
I think that you are being a little opaque here, Alan.
What do you mean by "mind"? How would you differentiate "mind" from "brain"?
Brain is the physical machine.
I consider the mind to be the combined entity of machine (brain) and driver (soul).
-
Brain is the physical machine.
I consider the mind to be the combined entity of machine (brain) and driver (soul).
That is because you're trying to find a role for 'god': and the TofE doesn't require the addition of 'god' at all.
-
I understand it is a theory used to try to explain the lack of transitional fossils.
SJ Gould;
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
-
Brain is the physical machine.
I consider the mind to be the combined entity of machine (brain) and driver (soul).
You could consider it, but you'd be wrong. The world would be so much better if only people would stop being wrong so much.
-
I understand it is a theory used to try to explain the lack of transitional fossils.
Yes, and it has many adherents as well as detractors. Probably the best rendition of it is by Stephen Jay Gould in 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory'. Certainly, I would suggest, there is a case to be made for it alongside the case for stasis and graduated evolution.
Tens of thousands of years is still an extremely short period in the evolutionary time scale. What I am saying is that the profound advance in the capabilities of the human mind was evidently not a gradual process in the evolution time line.
However, now you have at least accepted that we have evidence for creative abilites in certain hominids(not just homo sapiens) going back tens of thousands of years, then it is quite reasonable to surmise that such creative abilities did not necessarily start with the dating of first discoveries, but the driving force of that creativity might well have been illustrated in forms that have not survived(e.g. dance, sound, body painting). There is evidence, for instance, in South Africa of the selection of the deliberate production of ochre pigments which might, I stress, might have been used for body decoration. This was some 164000 years ago.
Another evolutionary trend in hominids, and, although you may not accept this as evidence of increasing 'consciously driven artistic abilities'( I assume you think they are a gift from God), does seem to have correlation to greater thinking power, greater social interaction(and, therefore, greater awareness) and possibly the sophistication of language. This evolutionary trait is the increase in brain size in hominids over millions of years. The cranial capacity of early hominids, such as aferensis annd africanus, was in the range of 500 cm3, and this gradually increased(habilis c700cm3), erectus(c900cm3) to homo sapiens( c1500 cm3). Compared with other mammals, the neocortex of primates has changed a great deal. In most mammals it accounts for 30-40% of the brain. in primates it is larger still and in humans it accounts for c80% of the brain mass. The neocortex is basically the thinking part of our brain and seems to have an important part in the development of language and social relationships.(see Robin Dunbar) Hence I would suggest that you are limiting your suggestions simply to homo sapiens. If you looked at the bigger picture then you just might just see the evolutionary trend towards the greater capabilities of the mind was a process which took millions of years.
-
Right, so you are talking about unconformities, which is not what was in the last picture you showed.
Sorry - I showed that as an example of erosion of the present land surface, as your question was slightly ambiguous ("what rocks am I talking about"?)
In your first post on this thread you mention the Black Canyon Unconformity and from what I have read there is evidence of erosion in the lower layers. The type of erosion seen in unconformities depends exactly on the history - for example if the lower layers reside in a shallow sea for a period they will be eroded in a different way than if they have been exposed to wind/rain etc.
I probably should have just posted this link; I didn't because I know you don't trust creationist websites. It does show several examples though for reference. The Black Canyon is a bit harder to understand because the gap in time is over a billion years.
https://creation.com/flat-gaps
As with evolutionary theory, the vast mnajority of peole who are trained and work in this field see no issues with this. Why do you think that is exactly?
Not sure.
-
https://creation.com/flat-gaps
Ignoring creationist sites like this one (why you bother with them beats me) - what is the view of professional geologists?
-
In your example of the sun rising tomorrow because it did every day of your life, it follows that your observation of the rotating earth from space today and tomorrow proves that today it is a sphere; however, that may not be the case next week when I observe it, as it may then be oblong. If I see a football and an orange together I have proof they are the same shape; if I see the earth from space I have proof it is the same shape as things like oranges and footballs.
If I haven't seen it then I don't have proof, I guess.
I looked at a 10p piece today. It was the same shape as an orange and the Earth from space. Does that make a 10p piece spherical? No.
There is no proof that the Earth is more or less spherical, but the evidence is incredibly strong and you seem to have no trouble inferring from the evidence that the Earth is round. Well, the evidence for evolution is also incredibly strong. We have the evidence from the fossil record, the evidence from genetics and the evidence from geographical distribution and there is other evidence too. So why is it you have no trouble following the evidence where the shape of the planet is concerned but you can’t do the same for evolution?
-
https://creation.com/flat-gaps
You know I looked at this did some searching and found (ignoring the vested interest creationist sites) quite a lot of information, why couldn't you be bothered?
I also looked at some of the rest of this site and found the usual dishonest misrepresentation (https://creation.com/natural-selection-evolution) and contrived and ridiculous nonsense (pdf) (https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf) in order to try to distort the evidence in order to fit the preconceived idea of what their blind faith in a primitive superstition was telling them. Every bit as ridiculous as the Flat Earth Society.
-
Sorry - I showed that as an example of erosion of the present land surface, as your question was slightly ambiguous ("what rocks am I talking about"?)
I probably should have just posted this link; I didn't because I know you don't trust creationist websites. It does show several examples though for reference. The Black Canyon is a bit harder to understand because the gap in time is over a billion years.
https://creation.com/flat-gaps
Not sure.
Ah right, so paraconformities. These are not a problem to the vast majority of geologists. I don't trust creationist websites, no, and you just need to read the 'What we believe' section under 'About' to see why. This comes back to my question of why are the supposed issues raised by creationist websites not considered a problem to the vast majority of those who work in the relevant fields. Or to put it another way, why are these things only seen as problematic by those with creationist religious beliefs?
-
Have been reading about planation surfaces, very interesting. Worth a look.
-
Most people will agree that evolution is seen to be a slow process involving millions of years to bring about substantial developments in species.
The evolution of the human body as we now know it spanned several millions of years from its ape like ancestors.
But consider the evolution of the human mind.
The evidence of the consciously driven creative abilities of humans dates from just a few thousand years ago, which on the evolutionary scale of time implies that the profound development of the modern human mind occurred in the blink of an eyelid. There is no evidence of a gradual development, just a sudden, instantaneous transition.
Well then, let us all have the scientific, objective, clear EVIDENCE to support this wild claim.
-
You only need to look into the evolution of the Peppered moth Alan, all science, no Mr Magic Pie in the Sky man needed or necessary I've added a link for you.
It'll be interesting to see how your written gymnastics department struggles to insert the god idea of yours into the frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Commiserations Alan, ippy
-
You only need to look into the evolution of the Peppered moth Alan, all science, no Mr Magic Pie in the Sky man needed or necessary I've added a link for you.
It'll be interesting to see how your written gymnastics department struggles to insert the god idea of yours into the frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Commiserations Alan, ippy
A question about camouflage: how does a camouflaged creature know where it should hide to avoid being detected?
-
It doesn't.
You don't have a clue about any of this, do you?
-
A question about camouflage: how does a camouflaged creature know where it should hide to avoid being detected?
Really? They live in an environment. If one animal has genetic modifications which mean they blend into the environment more than another then they have a greater chance of passing on that modification to subsequent generations, hence the modification becomes established. Evolution in action. They don't know about it, although of course instincts and learning can help them use their camouflage. A strange question.
-
I used to see mountain hares in winter coat, when there was no snow, and they stood out like a sore thumb. I suppose spud wants to know why they don't evolve on the spot! Well, they lose their winter coat, clever eh?
-
A question about camouflage: how does a camouflaged creature know where it should hide to avoid being detected?
The camouflage is adapted to its natural habitat.
-
A question about camouflage: how does a camouflaged creature know where it should hide to avoid being detected?
You're doing a good job of being a pretend dip stick Spud.
Regards ippy
-
It doesn't.
You don't have a clue about any of this, do you?
The indications are that it does. But we don't know how it knows, according to this scientist:
"One intriguing puzzle remains: how do the lizards ‘know’ how camouflaged their own backs are to a bird against a particular rock?"
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/lizards-camouflage-themselves-by-choosing-rocks-that-best-match-the-colour-of-their-backs
-
You only need to look into the evolution of the Peppered moth Alan, all science, no Mr Magic Pie in the Sky man needed or necessary I've added a link for you.
It'll be interesting to see how your written gymnastics department struggles to insert the god idea of yours into the frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Commiserations Alan, ippy
It's a variation in the amount of melanin, like races of people have. It doesn't add anything new to the genome, so is not evolution in the microbes to man sense.
-
It's a variation in the amount of melanin, like races of people have. It doesn't add anything new to the genome, so is not evolution in the microbes to man sense.
What an empty stupid response, aren't you supposed to be qualified as some sort of scientist?
Even that pope bloke accepts evolution as a fact.
ippy
-
The indications are that it does. But we don't know how it knows, according to this scientist:
"One intriguing puzzle remains: how do the lizards ‘know’ how camouflaged their own backs are to a bird against a particular rock?"
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/lizards-camouflage-themselves-by-choosing-rocks-that-best-match-the-colour-of-their-backs
From the same article: "This is the first result of its kind in wild animals, and in lizards specifically" so it isn't applicable to the peppered moth (the context in which you asked the question) and other instances of camouflage.
As to how; "one theory is that it is under genetic control, while another possibility is that it develops in early life through learning from other lizards and from experience".
It's a variation in the amount of melanin, like races of people have. It doesn't add anything new to the genome, so is not evolution in the microbes to man sense.
Ilik Saccheri, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Liverpool, UK, and his colleagues have used molecular genetics to show that one mutation from a single ancestor causes increased dark pigment, called melanism, in the typically light-coloured moth. Their results are published today in Science.
-- The peppered moth's dark genetic past revealed (https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110414/full/news.2011.238.html)
-
Ilik Saccheri, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Liverpool, UK, and his colleagues have used molecular genetics to show that one mutation from a single ancestor causes increased dark pigment, called melanism, in the typically light-coloured moth. Their results are published today in Science.
-- The peppered moth's dark genetic past revealed (https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110414/full/news.2011.238.html)
Mutations do not add genes. If all life came from microbes the number of genes must have increased, but mutations never result in new genes being added.
-
"One intriguing puzzle remains: how do the lizards ‘know’ how camouflaged their own backs are to a bird against a particular rock?"
Easy, if they get eaten they know they were not well camouflaged. If they don't get eaten they produce lots of little lizards with the same or similar camouflage to themselves.
-
Mutations do not add genes. If all life came from microbes the number of genes must have increased, but mutations never result in new genes being added.
That is absolutely false.
Mutations frequently add new genes. For example, it is not uncommon for genes to get duplicated and once duplicated, the second copy is free to mutate further without killing the organism.
Furthermore, the creation of new genes has been observed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
The most striking adaptation reported so far is the evolution of aerobic growth on citrate, which is unusual in E. coli, in one population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500
-
Easy, if they get eaten they know they were not well camouflaged. If they don't get eaten they produce lots of little lizards with the same or similar camouflage to themselves.
Yes j p, it's that simple and I believe Spud is supposed to have some sort of science qualification?
Regards ippy
-
Mutations do not add genes. If all life came from microbes the number of genes must have increased, but mutations never result in new genes being added.
Who told you that? You can get new base pairs added and you can also get parts of the sequence duplicated that can then itself be subject to mutation. For example, that's how tricolour vision evolved in primates.
See:
The evolution of trichromatic color vision by opsin gene duplication in New World and Old World primates. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10413401)
-
Actually, when you consider the TOE, it's the one you sort of think "I could have come up with that"
It seems so obvious.
-
Mutations do not add genes. If all life came from microbes the number of genes must have increased, but mutations never result in new genes being added.
The most common way for a new gene to evolve is for an existing gene to be duplicated. Once there are two or more copies, each can evolve in separate directions.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/
-
Just a reminder of an earlier quote from Spud 'I don't think I have intelligence for evolutionary genetics.'
-
Mutations do not add genes. If all life came from microbes the number of genes must have increased, but mutations never result in new genes being added.
Is this the usual "mutations don't add information" bollocks we get ad bloody nauseam from fundies? If so, may I refer you to the well-attested phenomenon of polyploidy?
Read this. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)
-
Who told you that? You can get new base pairs added and you can also get parts of the sequence duplicated that can then itself be subject to mutation.
Just making sure you were all awake.
If you want to make microbes into man, you need the duplicated genes to perform new functions.
I have a TV that produces sound and a picture.
I want it to play a DVD too.
I go and buy another TV, hoping that using just the parts from both I can make one that can play a DVD.
-
Who told you that? You can get new base pairs added and you can also get parts of the sequence duplicated that can then itself be subject to mutation.
...
If you want to make microbes into man, you need the duplicated genes to perform new functions.
That's what the second part of my sentence that you quoted covered and the example I linked to. You'd also do well to look at the link Genial Harry gave in #291: Claim CB102 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)
I have a TV that produces sound and a picture.
I want it to play a DVD too.
I go and buy another TV, hoping that using just the parts from both I can make one that can play a DVD.
Idiotic comparison - from some creationist site, I assume?
-
Just a reminder of an earlier quote from Spud 'I don't think I have intelligence for evolutionary genetics.'
I have come to the conclusion that it isn't my intelligence which is at fault, but the nature of the subject. You are claiming that normal physiological processes (mutation etc) are able to change microbes into men. It's utter crap and enough to give any sensible person a brain haemorrhage. Knowledge of these processes is useful but in this case has been misapplied, and is therefore what I would describe as "fake news". So as far as I am concerned, you can all sit down.
While I think of it, I found out why the retina is wired back to front, it is to do with glial cells concentrating light onto cone cells and enhancing colour. Stranger's link about opsin reminded me.
Anyway, that's enough genetics for me, although I'm always interested to read about it from a non-microbes-to-man-evolutionary point of view. This is good:
https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans
-
I have come to the conclusion that it isn't my intelligence which is at fault, but the nature of the subject. You are claiming that normal physiological processes (mutation etc) are able to change microbes into men. It's utter crap and enough to give any sensible person a brain haemorrhage.
"It's utter crap", such an eloquent and logical argument!
A great deal of science is highly counterintuitive but I imagine that you don't have the same reaction to General Relativity (time and space can distort) or Quantum Mechanics (particles can be in more than one place at a time) because those don't so directly conflict with your favourite superstition.
Of course if you're of the young universe persuasion, then you have to disagree with lots of science that has nothing to do with evolution.
You never did answer the question as to why you think you know more than pretty much all of the experts in the relevant fields. I do urge you to read The truth about evolution (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html) - he disbelieves in evolution too but at least he has the honesty and integrity to admit that it is purely a matter of faith.
The truth is that you don't know better than the experts (you don't seem to know much about the subject at all), the evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt and you are choosing to disbelieve entirely due to your faith. That's your choice but you should have the honesty to admit it.
-
I have come to the conclusion that it isn't my intelligence which is at fault, but the nature of the subject. You are claiming that normal physiological processes (mutation etc) are able to change microbes into men.
I am claiming nothing. The vast number of people who are qualified in the subject and work in the field are making the claims which are supported y a huge amount of evidence. I accept this.
It's utter crap and enough to give any sensible person a brain haemorrhage.
Personal incredulity personified.
Knowledge of these processes is useful but in this case has been misapplied, and is therefore what I would describe as "fake news". So as far as I am concerned, you can all sit down.
Why should your opinion count for anything?
-
The fact that the eye is wired up wrong way round, the nerves running across the surface of the retina before plunging through a hole - the blind spot.
Our image of the world is detected by photoreceptors, lying at the bottom of the nearly-transparent retina. Lateral neural layers for processing the image temporally, spectrally, and spatially come in front the photoreceptors, not behind them. This reverse order is a long-standing puzzle, which we wish to explain. We found out that cone photoreceptors are attached to metabolic Muller cells which span the retina. Cones provide colour vision at day time, and are surrounded by sensitive rods which function at night. We showed by an analytical and a computational method that the M\"{u}ller cells also serve as fibre optics, concentrating green-red light into the cones, while the excessive blue is scattered to the nearby rods. Spatial and spectral laboratory measurements validate that indeed the shapes and refractive index values of the Muller cells and the surrounding retina separate the colours according to the spectral sensitivities of both cones and rods. These results also explain other effects of vision acuity and colour sensitivity.
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR15/Session/S47.2
"It's utter crap", such an eloquent and logical argument!
A great deal of science is highly counterintuitive but I imagine that you don't have the same reaction to General Relativity (time and space can distort) or Quantum Mechanics (particles can be in more than one place at a time) because those don't so directly conflict with your favourite superstition.
Of course if you're of the young universe persuasion, then you have to disagree with lots of science that has nothing to do with evolution.
You never did answer the question as to why you think you know more than pretty much all of the experts in the relevant fields. I do urge you to read The truth about evolution (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html) - he disbelieves in evolution too but at least he has the honesty and integrity to admit that it is purely a matter of faith.
The truth is that you don't know better than the experts (you don't seem to know much about the subject at all), the evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt and you are choosing to disbelieve entirely due to your faith. That's your choice but you should have the honesty to admit it.
The above evidence seems to contradict what experts were thinking about the eye (that it's poorly designed). When it comes to duplication and mutation we are given lots of examples of changes in pre-existing biochemical pathways to help organisms adapt. For example, a large increase in melanism, which in the peppered moth may have been caused by a duplication in a gene for melanin such that it enabled the moth to become completely dark instead of speckled. This is believable but when we look for the particular insect which the moth evolved from, we find that "The origins of insect flight remain obscure, since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers." (wiki) This supports the view that while allowing adaptation of organisms to environmental change, genetic modification is not able to build complex structures such as wings.
-
How does it support that view?
-
Spud seems to take the view that we see with our eyes. If he had any understanding of neuroscience he would know that the eye is is the receptor of light-based information and that the processing of visual information takes place in - among other locations - the visual cortex in the occipital lobe of the brain.
The brain is our organ of vision, it perceives and creates our understanding of the world. Our eyes are merely cameras.
-
Spud seems to take the view that we see with our eyes. If he had any understanding of neuroscience he would know that the eye is is the receptor of light-based information and that the processing of visual information takes place in - among other locations - the visual cortex in the occipital lobe of the brain.
The brain is our organ of vision, it perceives and creates our understanding of the world. Our eyes are merely cameras.
I do know a bit about the optic nerve and visual cortex. Are you saying they are poorly designed too?
How does it support that view?
By showing that flight didn't gradually evolve, as also in bats and birds. Wings appear suddenly, fully capable of flight.
-
I would imagine primitive insect wings would be hard to spot in a fossil but that's just off the top of my head with nomparticular knowledge. I do know however that the fossil record does show a gradual evolution of feathers and wings so think you extrapolation from insects to all flighing creatures is incorrect.
-
so think you extrapolation from insects to all flighing creatures is incorrect.
Not what I said.
Flying insects first appear with fully formed wings.
Flying bats first appear with fully formed wings.
Flying birds first appear with fully formed wings.
-
Not what I said.
Flying insects first appear with fully formed wings.
Flying bats first appear with fully formed wings.
Flying birds first appear with fully formed wings.
You said wings appear suddenly, fully capable of flight. This is true in someway in that something cannot be described as a wing unless it lets you fly, but the fossil record for birds shows an evolution of pre wings (if you like) which could not sustain flight. Feathered dinosaurs which couldn't fly evolving into birds which can.
-
Not what I said.
Flying insects first appear with fully formed wings.
Flying bats first appear with fully formed wings.
Flying birds first appear with fully formed wings.
Are non flying birds related to flying ones?
-
You said wings appear suddenly, fully capable of flight.
When I said that, I was thinking that archaeopteryx, which could fly (although may have had to jump off something high to get airborne) dates to 150 million years old: older than a lot of the flightless feathered theropods it is thought to have evolved from. So in that sense, bird flight appears quite suddenly. The pre-wings you mention are interesting, as their feathers could not provide lift, however the same is true of ostrich feathers. Ostriches use their wings as stabilizers when they run. Maybe the flightless winged theropods did also?
This is true in someway in that something cannot be described as a wing unless it lets you fly, but the fossil record for birds shows an evolution of pre wings (if you like) which could not sustain flight. Feathered dinosaurs which couldn't fly evolving into birds which can.
-
Are non flying birds related to flying ones?
Ostriches and emus etc seem to have descended from even bigger flightless birds, so probably not, in their case.
-
Note that the two earliest flying insect fossils are of a mayfly and a giant dragonfly.
The earliest known bat fossil was fully capable of flight.
-
When I said that, I was thinking that archaeopteryx, which could fly (although may have had to jump off something high to get airborne) dates to 150 million years old: older than a lot of the flightless feathered theropods it is thought to have evolved from. So in that sense, bird flight appears quite suddenly. The pre-wings you mention are interesting, as their feathers could not provide lift, however the same is true of ostrich feathers. Ostriches use their wings as stabilizers when they run. Maybe the flightless winged theropods did also?
It's not certain that archaeopteryx could fly; it may only have been able to glide.
-
Note that the two earliest flying insect fossils are of a mayfly and a giant dragonfly.
The earliest known bat fossil was fully capable of flight.
If an earlier ancestor of the earliest bats couldn't fly would it be considered a bat? If it didn't show wings etc suitable for flight would it be a bat?
-
If an earlier ancestor of the earliest bats couldn't fly would it be considered a bat? If it didn't show wings etc suitable for flight would it be a bat?
Quite. Fundies often use artificial human classifications to make this sort of claim. They say, for example, that archaeopteryx was a true, fully-developed bird, because we classify it as a bird, despite the fact that it had teeth, claws on its wings, and a bony tail. It is obviously transitional, but because biologists don't have a category called "dinobird", it gets lumped in with true, fully-evolved, later birds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
-
It's not certain that archaeopteryx could fly; it may only have been able to glide.
Recent research shows it had wing bones with a structure more similar to pheasants than to theropods, suggesting it did flap in some way:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03296-8
It also had a feather structure similar to modern birds, with interlocking barbules that strengthen them:
https://phys.org/news/2012-01-winged-dinosaur-archaeopteryx-flight.html
There are other fossils which show that flight was advanced by 130 mya: Archaeornithura meemannae, and Iberomesornis, 125 mya.
I have looked for an ancestor of Archaeopteryx, which is older than the Chinese feathered Sinornithosaurus, microraptor etc, but haven't found a clear transitional between it and the dinosaurs. Maybe you know?
If an earlier ancestor of the earliest bats couldn't fly would it be considered a bat? If it didn't show wings etc suitable for flight would it be a bat?
I guess people would call it something like "protobat"! Not sure what your point is though, as there doesn't seem to be such an ancestor?
-
I guess people would call it something like "protobat"! Not sure what your point is though, as there doesn't seem to be such an ancestor?
The point is that a creature will only be referred to as a bat if it shows the characteristics of a bat such as being able to fly. If it doesn't it won't be referred to as a bat, even if it shows proto wings. So saying early bats could fly sort of comes with the definition of a bat.
-
Recent research shows it had wing bones with a structure more similar to pheasants than to theropods, suggesting it did flap in some way:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03296-8
It also had a feather structure similar to modern birds, with interlocking barbules that strengthen them:
https://phys.org/news/2012-01-winged-dinosaur-archaeopteryx-flight.html
There are other fossils which show that flight was advanced by 130 mya: Archaeornithura meemannae, and Iberomesornis, 125 mya.
I have looked for an ancestor of Archaeopteryx, which is older than the Chinese feathered Sinornithosaurus, microraptor etc, but haven't found a clear transitional between it and the dinosaurs. Maybe you know?
Archaeopteryx is transitional between birds and dinosaurs! That's why some creationosts once wasted much time and energy trying to dismiss it as a forgery. They seem to have given that up now. Fossilisation is a rare event: the vast majority of creatures leave no trace. It is therefore not surprising that we don't have fossils of every single stage in the transition.
-
Archaeopteryx is transitional between birds and dinosaurs!....
Fossilisation is a rare event: the vast majority of creatures leave no trace. It is therefore not surprising that we don't have fossils of every single stage in the transition.
Archaeopteryx may not be classified as a bird, due to its dinosaur-like traits.
My point is that it could fly. (Several features suggest this, including a humerus bone that was similar in structure to a pheasant's; feathers that were similar to modern flight feathers; a well developed visual cortex and cerebellum, a furcula and a (albeit small) sternum).
There are no intermediates between the down feathers and the flight feathers; between flyers and non-flyers; it's up to each individual if you want to believe they existed, but the evidence suggests that all flying insects, mammals, and birds appear suddenly without intermediates in the record.
(Just to add: the "Coelurosaurs", that is, Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Caudopteryx, Microraptor, are all later than Archaeornithura meemannae, a fully capable flier dated at 130.7 my. So they can't be transitionals between non-fliers and fliers.)
-
I think the Wikipedia article sums it all up well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_and_gliding_animals
-
I think the Wikipedia article sums it all up well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_and_gliding_animals
And I think I have read enough fiction for at least a week!
-
People who deny evolution are in the same league as those that deny the Earth is a sphere.
It's not worth discussing it with them.
This topic is not up for discussion, it is now accepted.
It could be overturned of course, but only with evidence, and not personal incredulity, which is all that's on show.
You find it hard to believe, okay, I sympathise, now what?
-
People who deny evolution are in the same league as those that deny the Earth is a sphere.
It's not worth discussing it with them.
This topic is not up for discussion, it is now accepted.
It could be overturned of course, but only with evidence, and not personal incredulity, which is all that's on show.
You find it hard to believe, okay, I sympathise, now what?
Oh, let's not give up on Spud yet! Since we've been discussing transitional fossils, I'd like to hear his pearls of wisdom about Tiktaalik. It is particularly significant that this fossil was found in the very type of geological strata and global location that one would have expected such a creature to be found, and I think that can't be just coincidence.
-
I'm just stating facts from the fossil record that I've found by researching online - they are glossed over in Maeght's link. Nobody denies microevolution, it is an interesting subject, as long as the data is interpreted correctly. Macroevolution is indeed accepted by this generation, but maybe a future generation wil think differently?
Oh, let's not give up on Spud yet! Since we've been discussing transitional fossils, I'd like to hear his pearls of wisdom about Tiktaalik. It is particularly significant that this fossil was found in the very type of geological strata and global location that one would have expected such a creature to be found, and I think that can't be just coincidence.
Will get back to you.
-
And I think I have read enough fiction for at least a week!
Been on all those creationist websites again have we?
-
Been on all those creationist websites again have we?
If you have I'm happy for you, hope they helped ;)
-
If you have I'm happy for you, hope they helped ;)
I take a look occasionally for a laugh.
-
And I think I have read enough fiction for at least a week!
Why is it fiction?
-
Why is it fiction?
Because it claims that creatures have evolved flight (six times in the first paragraph) but the claim is wrong because of missing links (#314). It even states they don't know how any of it happened.
-
I do know a bit about the optic nerve and visual cortex. Are you saying they are poorly designed too?
No. They weren't designed at all - they evolved through natural selection.
-
Not what I said.
Flying insects first appear with fully formed wings.
Flying bats first appear with fully formed wings.
Flying birds first appear with fully formed wings.
Not true. In all those cases we have transitional forms that had less than fully formed wings.
-
Not true. In all those cases we have transitional forms that had less than fully formed wings.
I'll ask you before Mr Potato-head does: examples?
-
Oh, let's not give up on Spud yet! Since we've been discussing transitional fossils, I'd like to hear his pearls of wisdom about Tiktaalik. It is particularly significant that this fossil was found in the very type of geological strata and global location that one would have expected such a creature to be found, and I think that can't be just coincidence.
I've had a brief look at Tiktaalik but haven't consulted much in the way of creationist sources. Yes it looks like a transition at first (comparing it with lobe-finned fish and tetrapods). One possibility is that it's a mosaic, a bit like the platypus which has reptilian and mammalian traits. Will read more when I get time.
-
I've had a brief look at Tiktaalik but haven't consulted much in the way of creationist sources.
Best not.
Yes it looks like a transition at first (comparing it with lobe-finned fish and tetrapods that weren't fully capable of walking on land). One possibility is that it's a mosaic, a bit like the platypus which has reptilian and mammalian traits. Will read more when I get time.
Try not to just read creationist sources though.
-
Best not.
Try not to just read creationist sources though.
I've found out several things. First, the pectoral fin of Tiktaalik (dated 375 my) contains "radials" from which it is supposed that the digit bones of amphibians such as Acanthostega (dated 365 my) were derived. However, Tiktaalik's radials are flatter than the round digits of Acanthostega and much less "fingerlike". One wonders if this transition could realistically occur.
The lobe-finned Panderichthys (dated before Tiktaalik at 380 my) also has radials (see: https://tinyurl.com/yauau6vm).
Further, the ulnare bones in the pectoral limb in the above three species are of different size but do not form a smooth progression. Based on the Pectoral fins, a progression from Tiktaalik -> Panderichthys -> Acanthostega looks more natural.
I am not sure if this information is completely up to date, will continue to check it.
Edit: have found out that in 2014 the pelvis and part of a rear fin were finally described. The pelvis is large, suggesting that the rear fins were strong like the pectoral fins. However, it is thought that the fins wouldn't have been able to support the animal out of water.
Have also found out that tetrapods were walking around before Tiktaalik lived (according to conventional dating):
https://www.activeme.ie/guides/tetrapod-fossilised-tracks-valentia-island-kerry/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5773519/
-
Keep up the studying and questioning Spud. Look at as many sources as you can. I won't attempt to address any of your 'issues' since I am not qualified in the field of evolutionary biology and do not work in the field, and have never claimed to be an expert. I understand there are debates within the scientific community on this as with most things, which is how it should be. The vast consensus within the scientific community in areas relevant to evolutionary biology is that evolution by natural selection has a huge amount of supporting evidence and that Tiktaalik is an important transitional fossil. Bare that in mind during your studies and try not to view the debates among scientists on specific details as indicating fundamental doubts about the validity of the ToE by Natural Selection.
-
I've been studying the various Australopithecus species, and found that like Tiktaalik, these are also predated: by the Laetoli footprints, made by humans.
Also of interest is that the Pygmy chimpanzee (bonobo) has a foramen magnum that is more centrally positioned than in other primates, similar to Australopithecines: see the photo half-way down on this page:
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-section-3.htm
Again,
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbuiy1XNmYvKQQg9O6KjB6g7VwygAkeRT6MEfG70B6iIeeNpS0sA
Compare with the Australopithecus on this page:
http://www.fcnym.unlp.edu.ar/museo/educativa/serypertenecer/principal/australopitecinos.html
-
Keep the studying going.
-
Keep the studying going.
The problem is that his studies are almost entirely from creationist sites.
-
The problem is that his studies are almost entirely from creationist sites.
Yeah, I have advised against that in the past. I'm hoping the studying will extend beyond those though. How about it Spud?
-
From Spud's post 332:
I've been studying the various Australopithecus species, and found that like Tiktaalik, these are also predated: by the Laetoli footprints, made by humans.
Or, to put it more accurately:
1) The footprints were made by a species of hominins circa 3.7 million years ago.
2) Hominins includes australopithecus species as well as homo species
3) The footprints were most likely made by Australopithecus afarensis, whose fossils were found in the same sediment layer.
-
Yeah, I have advised against that in the past. I'm hoping the studying will extend beyond those though. How about it Spud?
Having been taught evolution first, yes I am keen to check out the evidence for it.
-
From Spud's post 332:
Or, to put it more accurately:
1) The footprints were made by a species of hominins circa 3.7 million years ago.
2) Hominins includes australopithecus species as well as homo species
3) The footprints were most likely made by Australopithecus afarensis, whose fossils were found in the same sediment layer.
At the moment though, exactly how this species walked, and whether its footprints would be like those fossil tracks, is not known.
-
Having been taught evolution first, yes I am keen to check out the evidence for it.
By looking at sites other than creationist ones?
-
By looking at sites other than creationist ones?
Of course.
In 2011 a single foot bone, a fourth metatarsal, which is dated at 3 million years old, was found. Initially it was thought that it proves australopithecines had human-like foot arches. But a subsequent study in 2012 suggested the bone was more like that of a gorilla:
Title
"The AL 333-160 fourth metatarsal from Hadar compared to that of humans, great apes, baboons and proboscis monkeys: non-conclusive evidence for pedal arches or obligate bipedality in Hadar hominins."
Abstract
"Based on comparisons to non-statistically representative samples of humans and two great ape species (i.e. common chimpanzees Pan troglodytes and lowland gorillas Gorilla gorilla), Ward et al. (2011) concluded that a complete hominin fourth metatarsal (4th MT) from Hadar, AL 333-160, belonged to a committed terrestrial biped with fixed transverse and longitudinal pedal arches, which was no longer under selection favoring substantial arboreal behaviors. According to Ward et al., the Hadar 4th MT had (1) a torsion value indicating a transverse arch, (2) sagittal plane angles between the diaphyseal long axis and the planes of the articular surfaces indicating a longitudinal arch, and (3) a narrow mediolateral to dorsoplantar base ratio, an ectocuneiform facet, and tarsal articular surface contours all indicating a rigid foot without an ape-like mid-tarsal break. Comparisons of the Hadar 4th MT characters to those of statistically representative samples of humans, all five great ape species, baboons and proboscis monkeys show that none of the correlations Ward et al. make to localized foot function were supported by this analysis. The Hadar 4th MT characters are common to catarrhines that have a midtarsal break and lack fixed transverse or longitudinal arches. Further comparison of the AL 333-160 4th MT length, and base, midshaft and head circumferences to those of catarrhines with field collected body weights show that this bone is uniquely short with a large base. Its length suggests the AL 333-160 individual was a poor leaper with limited arboreal behaviors and lacked a longitudinal arch, i.e. its 4th MT long axis was usually held perpendicular to gravity. Its large base implies cuboid-4th MT joint mobility. A relatively short 4th MT head circumference indicates AL 333-160 had small proximal phalanges with a restricted range of mobility. Overall, AL 333-160 is most similar to the 4th MT of eastern gorillas, a slow moving quadruped that sacrifices arboreal behaviors for terrestrial ones. This study highlights evolutionary misconceptions underlying the practice of using localized anatomy and/or a single bony element to reconstruct overall locomotor behaviors and of summarizing great ape structure and behavior based on non-statistically representative samples of only a few living great ape species."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22995931 (emphasis mine)
So far I have concluded that the traits in Australopithecus identified as evidence of transition from non-bipedal to fully bipedal locomotion are actually better described as variations on the morphology of chimpanzees. So for example the calcaneus of DIK-1-1f is quite similar to that of a chimpanzee:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/7/eaar7723/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
Also the iliac bones of the pelvis do not flare as far forward as human ilia, but are chimp-like in orientation and size. The high Q-angle of the Au. femur could just be an adaptation for walking along tree branches. They also have chimp-like shoulder blades.
-
Of course.
In 2011 a single foot bone, a fourth metatarsal, which is dated at 3 million years old, was found. Initially it was thought that it proves australopithecines had human-like foot arches. But a subsequent study in 2012 suggested the bone was more like that of a gorilla:
Title
"The AL 333-160 fourth metatarsal from Hadar compared to that of humans, great apes, baboons and proboscis monkeys: non-conclusive evidence for pedal arches or obligate bipedality in Hadar hominins."
Abstract
"Based on comparisons to non-statistically representative samples of humans and two great ape species (i.e. common chimpanzees Pan troglodytes and lowland gorillas Gorilla gorilla), Ward et al. (2011) concluded that a complete hominin fourth metatarsal (4th MT) from Hadar, AL 333-160, belonged to a committed terrestrial biped with fixed transverse and longitudinal pedal arches, which was no longer under selection favoring substantial arboreal behaviors. According to Ward et al., the Hadar 4th MT had (1) a torsion value indicating a transverse arch, (2) sagittal plane angles between the diaphyseal long axis and the planes of the articular surfaces indicating a longitudinal arch, and (3) a narrow mediolateral to dorsoplantar base ratio, an ectocuneiform facet, and tarsal articular surface contours all indicating a rigid foot without an ape-like mid-tarsal break. Comparisons of the Hadar 4th MT characters to those of statistically representative samples of humans, all five great ape species, baboons and proboscis monkeys show that none of the correlations Ward et al. make to localized foot function were supported by this analysis. The Hadar 4th MT characters are common to catarrhines that have a midtarsal break and lack fixed transverse or longitudinal arches. Further comparison of the AL 333-160 4th MT length, and base, midshaft and head circumferences to those of catarrhines with field collected body weights show that this bone is uniquely short with a large base. Its length suggests the AL 333-160 individual was a poor leaper with limited arboreal behaviors and lacked a longitudinal arch, i.e. its 4th MT long axis was usually held perpendicular to gravity. Its large base implies cuboid-4th MT joint mobility. A relatively short 4th MT head circumference indicates AL 333-160 had small proximal phalanges with a restricted range of mobility. Overall, AL 333-160 is most similar to the 4th MT of eastern gorillas, a slow moving quadruped that sacrifices arboreal behaviors for terrestrial ones. This study highlights evolutionary misconceptions underlying the practice of using localized anatomy and/or a single bony element to reconstruct overall locomotor behaviors and of summarizing great ape structure and behavior based on non-statistically representative samples of only a few living great ape species."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22995931 (emphasis mine)
So far I have concluded that the traits in Australopithecus identified as evidence of transition from non-bipedal to fully bipedal locomotion are actually better described as variations on the morphology of chimpanzees. So for example the calcaneus of DIK-1-1f is quite similar to that of a chimpanzee:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/7/eaar7723/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
Also the iliac bones of the pelvis do not flare as far forward as human ilia, but are chimp-like in orientation and size. The high Q-angle of the Au. femur could just be an adaptation for walking along tree branches. They also have chimp-like shoulder blades.
Smashing: you've been doing some background reading, and your point is?
-
Smashing: you've been doing some background reading, and your point is?
I was saying that australopithecines were not committed terrestrial bipeds but chimpanzee-like animals. I might edit this, however, and say that that they seem to be mozaics, in that they have a mixture of traits (one of which may have been the ability to walk upright more effectively than modern apes) that we wouldn't expect to find together: some aspects of their skeletal structure being more like extant apes, others more like humans. They must have been adapted for a unique way of life. The question is whether they are related to other apes and humans. If we look at another mosaic, the platypus, we have to push the time of the last common ancestor with reptiles to before placentas evolved. It's then necessary to see if the fossil record agrees with this. With the platypus, as far as I know there is no transitional fossil between it and reptiles.
So we have a mosaic with ape and human traits. If they are related we should find a last common ancestor. Watch this space?
-
I was saying that australopithecines were not committed terrestrial bipeds but chimpanzee-like animals. I might edit this, however, and say that that they seem to be mozaics, in that they have a mixture of traits (one of which may have been the ability to walk upright more effectively than modern apes) that we wouldn't expect to find together: some aspects of their skeletal structure being more like extant apes, others more like humans. They must have been adapted for a unique way of life. The question is whether they are related to other apes and humans. If we look at another mosaic, the platypus, we have to push the time of the last common ancestor with reptiles to before placentas evolved. It's then necessary to see if the fossil record agrees with this. With the platypus, as far as I know there is no transitional fossil between it and reptiles.
So we have a mosaic with ape and human traits. If they are related we should find a last common ancestor. Watch this space?
Humans are apes. Your hypothesis makes no sense. If you really meant a mosaic between humans and chimpanzees, it makes a a bit more sense, but given that humans and chimpanzees only diverged about 6 million years ago, it’s not entirely unexpected that an ancestor of ours that lived 4 million years ago would have a bit more in common with chimps than we do.
-
Humans are apes. Your hypothesis makes no sense. If you really meant a mosaic between humans and chimpanzees, it makes a a bit more sense, but given that humans and chimpanzees only diverged about 6 million years ago, it’s not entirely unexpected that an ancestor of ours that lived 4 million years ago would have a bit more in common with chimps than we do.
Humans are not apes.... smh. You going to tell your children their great, great+ grandparents were apes.... seriously?!
Stop for a moment.... and think how silly that is.... somethin' ain't right..
-
Dicky Dawkins has a thought-experiment in one of his books. Imagine a woman standing on the beach at Brighton, sideways on to the sea, which is on her right. Her left hand is holding the right hand of her mother, whose left hand is holding the right hand of hermother, and so on, all the way up to the Scottish border, where the remote ancester of the woman on the beach is holding in her left hand, not the right hand of her mother, but that of her sister, who is holding in her left hand the right hand of her daughter, and so on all the way back down to Brighton beach, where the woman we started from is standing face to face with a chimpanzee.
-
Humans are not apes.... smh. You going to tell your children their great, great+ grandparents were apes.... seriously?!
Stop for a moment.... and think how silly that is.... somethin' ain't right..
Humans are apes: get over it.
The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, which includes modern humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as Homo erectus.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
-
Humans are not apes.... smh. You going to tell your children their great, great+ grandparents were apes.... seriously?!
Stop for a moment.... and think how silly that is.... somethin' ain't right..
Humans are apes. Your personal incredulity doesn't change that fact.
-
Humans are apes. Your personal incredulity doesn't change that fact.
Humans are apes: get over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
Are you sure you are not confusing 'facts' with the naming conventions in a classification system?
-
Are you sure you are not confusing 'facts' with the naming conventions in a classification system?
I think it is more the case that the names used in the classification system reflect the underlying 'facts' where Taxonomy involves methods that take into account the likes of shared characteristics, and no doubt these days DNA analysis.
-
Are you sure you are not confusing 'facts' with the naming conventions in a classification system?
We are classified as apes, which is a fact.
-
I think it is more the case that the names used in the classification system reflect the underlying 'facts' where Taxonomy involves methods that take into account the likes of shared characteristics, and no doubt these days DNA analysis.
Quite often DNA analysis shows that the earlier classification was misleading and this can lead to a change in taxonomy - the methods are not exact and involve judgements on similarity.
-
We are classified as apes, which is a fact.
Of-course. However I doubt that SweetPea was using "apes" in that precise sense.
-
Humans are not apes
How do you expect to be able to talk rationally about a subject if you can't even accept basic facts. Humans are apes. Fossil evidence and DNA evidence make that undeniable.
You going to tell your children their great, great+ grandparents were apes.... seriously?!
Yes I am and you are an ape to and so are all of your immediate relatives. Some of your more distant relatives like dogs and crocodiles and bananas are not apes.
Stop for a moment.... and think how silly that is.... somethin' ain't right..
How silly is it that you are denying the evidence? Yes, that is very silly.
-
Quite often DNA analysis shows that the earlier classification was misleading and this can lead to a change in taxonomy - the methods are not exact and involve judgements on similarity.
DNA analysis confirms that humans are apes.
-
Quite often DNA analysis shows that the earlier classification was misleading and this can lead to a change in taxonomy - the methods are not exact and involve judgements on similarity.
Science doesn't do absolute certainty though, which is a strength, and all its conclusions are provisional and subject to revision in the light of any new evidence. That said, some conclusions are sufficiently well supported that they can be taken to be interim facts for all practical purposes: such as that our species is one of eight extant species of great ape.
-
DNA analysis confirms that humans are apes.
DNA confirms that we are closely related to the other apes and descended from the same ancestral line. That is not really in dispute, however the word "ape" can casually be used in any number of different ways. You could use it to mean all apes, the great apes, or all the other current apes apart from humans, sometime including monkeys.
The argument is about word use not phylogenetic descent.
-
Science doesn't do absolute certainty though, which is a strength, and all its conclusions are provisional and subject to revision in the light of any new evidence. That said, some conclusions are sufficiently well supported that they can be taken to be interim facts for all practical purposes: such as that our species is one of eight extant species of great ape.
Yeah, but this is just fudging around :)
-
DNA confirms that we are closely related to the other apes and descended from the same ancestral line. That is not really in dispute, however the word "ape" can casually be used in any number of different ways. You could use it to mean all apes, the great apes, or all the other current apes apart from humans, sometime including monkeys.
The argument is about word use not phylogenetic descent.
Certainly people use the word "ape" colloquially to mean "apes except humans", but I try to avoid that.
In any case, the word was introduced into a discussion about the ancestry of humans and where Australopithecus fits into our evolutionary past. To claim that the term "ape" does not include humans in this context is to claim that humans and the other great apes do not share a (fairly recent in geological terms) common ancestor.
-
Of-course. However I doubt that SweetPea was using "apes" in that precise sense.
No, I imagine that SweetPea was repeating the old confusion to which creationists are prone: that of assuming that modern evolutionary theory is positing that somehow modern humans evolved from chimpanzees or gorillas or orang-utans. Of course we didn't - our earliest ancestors bore many of the distinctive characteristics of modern apes, but ancestral apes (creatures like Dryopithecus - posited as being not so far from the human line of descent) were quite distinct.
All the Australopithecines bore characteristics which were a bit of a mixture -A. robustus closer to modern apes, and A. afarensis closer to modern humans.
However, all this is a side-issue to the true assertion which has been made here, which is that humans are apes, something which fits well into the modern classification system of cladistics.
-
The argument is about word use not phylogenetic descent.
It's both. One can only hope its persistent use by modern scientists will encourage religious fundamentalists to use their brains a little to understand exactly how the term is used in zoology, paleontology and genetics.
-
It's both. One can only hope its persistent use by modern scientists will encourage religious fundamentalists to use their brains a little to understand exactly how the term is used in zoology, paleontology and genetics.
Not a chance. They haven't even got the memo about the scientifically correct meaning/usage of the word theory so far.
-
Certainly people use the word "ape" colloquially to mean "apes except humans", but I try to avoid that.
In any case, the word was introduced into a discussion about the ancestry of humans and where Australopithecus fits into our evolutionary past. To claim that the term "ape" does not include humans in this context is to claim that humans and the other great apes do not share a (fairly recent in geological terms) common ancestor.
This is true.
I took the "Humans are not apes..." assertion by SweetPea as a change of context.
-
No, I imagine that SweetPea was repeating the old confusion to which creationists are prone: that of assuming that modern evolutionary theory is positing that somehow modern humans evolved from chimpanzees or gorillas or orang-utans.
...
But this this has been explained so many times that any creationists can be assumed to be deliberately obfuscating the issue - meaning that extra care must be taken to be clear and precise and specify the context in any further explanations.
-
It's both. One can only hope its persistent use by modern scientists will encourage religious fundamentalists to use their brains a little to understand exactly how the term is used in zoology, paleontology and genetics.
It's too easily messed around with. Best to use the actual taxonomic names: Hominoidea, Hominidea, Pongidea and so on.
The phrase "Humans are apes" carries too much cultural baggage to be of much use.
-
Humans are apes.
As defined by their scapula, according to wikipedia. But in humans, the spine and glenoid fossa of the scapula point horizontally, whereas in the rest it points diagonally upwards. So to designate humans as apes on that basis is not completely accurate.
Your hypothesis makes no sense. If you really meant a mosaic between humans and chimpanzees, it makes a a bit more sense, but given that humans and chimpanzees only diverged about 6 million years ago, it’s not entirely unexpected that an ancestor of ours that lived 4 million years ago would have a bit more in common with chimps than we do.
I meant a mosaic between humans and other apes, including gorillas (see for example the mandible of Australopithecus Afarensis specimen A. L. 822-1:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568), orang utans, and chimps. The evidence I would point to against it being related to humans is where you get fossils of human-like appearance dating back millions of years. For example AL 666-1 which is a maxilla that looks very similar to a modern human but is dated at 3.3 my. Or the Laetoli footprints and others recently found nearby which date to 3+ my and show very similar size and shape, and identical habits to modern humans, where a smaller individual steps in the footprints of a larger one.
-
Another enigma for the conventional view of the fossil record is the 3.58 my KSD-VP-1/1, nicknamed "Big Man" because it is thought to be a large australopithecus individual. It might be better named "Little man" because it looks more like a human, with a human-like shoulder girdle:
https://lawnchairanthropology.com/2010/06/26/big-man-and-the-scapula-of-australopithecus-afarensis/
-
This is true.
I took the "Humans are not apes..." assertion by SweetPea as a change of context.
I took it to mean that Sweetpea thinks that humans are literally do not have a common ancestor with other apes. i.e. that humans were created separately from the other animals. Only on reading your post did it occur to me that I may be wrong and Sweetpea means that at some point in their evolution, humans crossed some sort of boundary that means they could no longer be called apes.
-
As defined by their scapula, according to wikipedia. But in humans, the spine and glenoid fossa of the scapula point horizontally, whereas in the rest it points diagonally upwards. So to designate humans as apes on that basis is not completely accurate.
You know it's not just about shoulder blades? All the evidence we have from fossils to DNA points to humans being apes.
I meant a mosaic between humans and other apes, including gorillas (see for example the mandible of Australopithecus Afarensis specimen A. L. 822-1:
So what you are saying is that our ancestors looked a bit more like other apes than we do. We have a word for that: "transitional".
In this thread you have now argued that transitional forms are evidence against evolution and the absence of transitional forms is evidence against evolution. Are you beginning to understand why nobody takes your arguments seriously?
-
So what you are saying is that our ancestors looked a bit more like other apes than we do. We have a word for that: "transitional".
I didn't say the Australopithecines were our ancestors (or our cousins). Yes, they looked more like apes than we do. That doesn't mean they are related to us. But if you read the rest of my post, I said that certain fossils seem to overturn the theory that they are related to us.
-
I didn't say the Australopithecines were our ancestors (or our cousins). Yes, they looked more like apes than we do. That doesn't mean they are related to us. But if you read the rest of my post, I said that certain fossils seem to overturn the theory that they are related to us.
You said that Australopithicines are a mosaic of humans and other apes and you describe some features that are human like and some features that are like other apes. Isn’t that exactly what we might expect from a transitional species? You are trying to have your cake and eat it. You claim that transitional don’t exist but then we we find one and you claim it can’t be related to humans because it has features of the species it transitioned from.
That’s deeply dishonest.
-
You said that Australopithicines are a mosaic of humans and other apes and you describe some features that are human like and some features that are like other apes. Isn’t that exactly what we might expect from a transitional species? You are trying to have your cake and eat it. You claim that transitional don’t exist but then we we find one and you claim it can’t be related to humans because it has features of the species it transitioned from.
That’s deeply dishonest.
If that's the case then I apologize. Yes you might expect a transitional to have features common to both. I can't argue that there isn't an apparently clear set of transitionals leading up to humans, but neither can anyone say that is conclusive evidence, because it could still be the case that they are unrelated.
To be fair, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion because of the incompleteness of the fossil specimens available. In time I'm sure more will be found.
One aspect of the Australopithecines that puzzles me is the ratio of upper and lower limb lengths. I wasn't sure there were any specimens which have a complete upper and lower limb, until I saw 'Little Foot'. It has recently gone on display and appears to have a roughly equal length upper and lower limb, which poses questions about how it moved. Hopefully more details will emerge and we will have a better understanding in future.
-
https://lawnchairanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/australopithecus-skeletons.png?w=676
This shows a number of Australopithecus specimens including the Little Foot in the red box.
-
https://lawnchairanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/australopithecus-skeletons.png?w=676
This shows a number of Australopithecus specimens including the Little Foot in the red box.
Anyone interested in 'little foot' might find this very readable article interesting, including, about halfway through, an excellent picture comparison of some of the most complete australopithecus skeletons to date.
https://medium.com/@johnhawks/will-the-most-complete-skeleton-ever-transform-human-origins-630c66ed90c4
I think you will find that paleoanthropologists have no problem with relating the 'southern ape' genera to the genus homo, but recent discoveries and recent techniques suggest that the picture is much more complex than first assumed and that the 'southern ape' and the homo line are much closer than was originally thought. Here, for instance, is a recent paper(June 2016) which suggests that in the light of recent evidence the homo line and the australopithecus line tend to blend into each other in a rather smoother transition than first thought. The paper itself is highly detailed, but the conclusion at least is definitely worth reading.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1698/20150248
-
WHY EVOLUTION IS
TRUE STILL AN IDEA...
Why is it important to bandy about a term which is no nearer now than when it first came into mans thought to being true?
When man can actually find the real answer it will be too late. Christ will have returned or the human race ended.
They are the only two likely outcomes. Either way these arguments will still be as useless then as when they started.
-
WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE STILL AN IDEA...
Why is it important to bandy about a term which is no nearer now than when it first came into mans thought to being true?
When man can actually find the real answer it will be too late. Christ will have returned or the human race ended.
They are the only two likely outcomes. Either way these arguments will still be as useless then as when they started.
That seems a bit defeatist. For sure, all things will pass, but we can still enjoy the ride while we are here, and for humans, that means exploring, inventing and figuring things out. That's how we roll.
-
WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE STILL AN IDEA...
Why is it important to bandy about a term which is no nearer now than when it first came into mans thought to being true?
Except it is; although, since it's based on the concept of evidence - one with which you're unacquainted - it would avail nothing to try to explain it to you even if space permitted.
They are the only two likely outcomes. Either way these arguments will still be as useless then as when they started.
They're only useless when you come up against people who don't understand science.
-
WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE STILL AN IDEA...
Why is it important to bandy about a term which is no nearer now than when it first came into mans thought to being true?
When man can actually find the real answer it will be too late. Christ will have returned or the human race ended.
They are the only two likely outcomes. Either way these arguments will still be as useless then as when they started.
In which case it is just as useless for you to produce your above pessimistic message. Why not start taking some enjoyment in the capacity that humans have for trying to expand our knowledge and understanding of the world we all live in? It isn't all bad, you know. ;D
-
Anyone interested in 'little foot' might find this very readable article interesting, including, about halfway through, an excellent picture comparison of some of the most complete australopithecus skeletons to date.
https://medium.com/@johnhawks/will-the-most-complete-skeleton-ever-transform-human-origins-630c66ed90c4
Thanks for that. In the video of the unveiling event, the guy mentions that Stw 573 is the only Australopithecus fossil with a complete arm and leg, enabling the limb proportions to be acurately determined. He said the legs are longer than its arms, so that answers my question. I measured them on my computer screen and got an intermembral index of about 85, which shows that previous estimates based on other specimens were correct. Humans have an index of 68-70.
-
WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE STILL AN IDEA...
Why is it important to bandy about a term which is no nearer now than when it first came into mans thought to being true?
When man can actually find the real answer it will be too late. Christ will have returned or the human race ended.
They are the only two likely outcomes. Either way these arguments will still be as useless then as when they started.
Well, there is a vast amount of evidence for the truth of evolution than when evolutionary ideas were first thought of (the idea goes back to the ancient Greeks btw). Palaeontology, geology and genetics - to name but three - all confirm it.
As for Christ - well the predictions about his return all proved false 1918 years ago, at a very generous estimate.
-
I think you will find that paleoanthropologists have no problem with relating the 'southern ape' genera to the genus homo, but recent discoveries and recent techniques suggest that the picture is much more complex than first assumed and that the 'southern ape' and the homo line are much closer than was originally thought. Here, for instance, is a recent paper(June 2016) which suggests that in the light of recent evidence the homo line and the australopithecus line tend to blend into each other in a rather smoother transition than first thought. The paper itself is highly detailed, but the conclusion at least is definitely worth reading.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1698/20150248
I'm afraid I can't make sense of most of it- it's too full of jargon for a layman to understand. But I understood figure 5. They seem to get from figure 5 that endocranial volume increased with time; they interpret this as evidence for evolution. It's a valid observation, but how do we tell whether that interpretation is correct, or whether there is some other reason for the observed shift in brain size? I noticed that the mean ECV values for H Erectus, H Habilis, Australopithecus and chimpanzees come in two distinct groups of two, which I suggest shows that you have apes on one hand and Homo on the other. Not a smooth progression but a group with low ECV and a group with high ECV.
-
I'm afraid I can't make sense of most of it- it's too full of jargon for a layman to understand. But I understood figure 5. They seem to get from figure 5 that endocranial volume increased with time; they interpret this as evidence for evolution. It's a valid observation, but how do we tell whether that interpretation is correct, or whether there is some other reason for the observed shift in brain size? I noticed that the mean ECV values for H Erectus, H Habilis, Australopithecus and chimpanzees come in two distinct groups of two, which I suggest shows that you have apes on one hand and Homo on the other. Not a smooth progression but a group with low ECV and a group with high ECV.
Assuming you accept evolution by artificial selection?
As evidence I enter a poodle.
http://puppyparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/miniature-poodle-puppy-300x225.jpg
-
Assuming you accept evolution by artificial selection?
As evidence I enter a poodle.
http://puppyparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/miniature-poodle-puppy-300x225.jpg
I accept that poodles may have come from wolves but wouldn't use the term evolution because that invokes the idea of shared ancestry with cats, bears, sea lions etc.
-
I accept that poodles may have come from wolves but wouldn't use the term evolution because that invokes the idea of shared ancestry with cats, bears, sea lions etc.
That shared ancestry exists, and we now have proof from the dna, as well as fossils.
-
I accept that poodles may have come from wolves but wouldn't use the term evolution because that invokes the idea of shared ancestry with cats, bears, sea lions etc.
Evolution is change, that humans can create breeds of dogs is a result of evolution by artificial selection.
-
That shared ancestry exists, and we now have proof from the dna, as well as fossils.
I'm reading around the subject, currently on Miacids. When I get to dna I will probably have to delete something to free up some memory.
-
I'm reading around the subject, currently on Miacids. When I get to dna I will probably have to delete something to free up some memory.
Do you agree that I can create a breed a dogs with certain characteristics by means evolution by artificial selection?
If you do agree then you must accept evolution is true.
After this we can provide you with evidence in support of evolution by natural selection.
-
Do you agree that I can create a breed a dogs with certain characteristics by means evolution by artificial selection?
If you do agree then you must accept evolution is true.
After this we can provide you with evidence in support of evolution by natural selection.
That change due to natural or artificial selection occurs is obvious to all, and you are saying you want to call this evolution. But the phrase, "the theory of evolution" means the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory? What is actually meant by evolution?
-
. How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory? What is actually meant by evolution?
Substitute evolution with gravity above.
Now, think about it.
-
That change due to natural or artificial selection occurs is obvious to all, and you are saying you want to call this evolution. But the phrase, "the theory of evolution" means the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory? What is actually meant by evolution?
Differentiate between evolution (phenomenon of life) and The Theory of Evolution (body of knowledge regarding evolution)
-
That change due to natural or artificial selection occurs is obvious to all, and you are saying you want to call this evolution. But the phrase, "the theory of evolution" means the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory? What is actually meant by evolution?
Maybe think of it this way, Spud: evolution is a fact: that things evolve, whereas the theory is about how this happens (e.g. natural selection).
-
Do you agree that I can create a breed a dogs with certain characteristics by means evolution by artificial selection?
If you do agree then you must accept evolution is true.
After this we can provide you with evidence in support of evolution by natural selection.
I agree evolution happens, just not on the scale you think it does. So according to the Theory of Evolution, dogs, cats, bears, and all carnivorous placental mammals evolved from tree-dwelling miacids. But common sense will tell you what this picture demonstrates: that miacids give rise to miacids:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Miacoides2.jpg
-
I agree evolution happens, just not on the scale you think it does. So according to the Theory of Evolution, dogs, cats, bears, and all carnivorous placental mammals evolved from tree-dwelling miacids. But common sense will tell you what this picture demonstrates: that miacids give rise to miacids:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Miacoides2.jpg
Ah. Common sense.
Are you sure that is the best way to go?
-
How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory?
Do you actually know what the word "theory" means when it is used by a scientist?
But the phrase, "the theory of evolution" means the theory that all life shares a common ancestor.
This king of the fairies in the sky stuff has really got to you, hasn't it. The theory of Evolution is about the process of species development NOT creation of life.
Amended 4 Oct.
-
Ah. Common sense.
Are you sure that is the best way to go?
I'll rephrase it: But a bit of investigation will tell you that miacids give rise to miacids:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Miacoides2.jpg
-
I'll rephrase it: But a bit of investigation will tell you that miacids give rise to miacids:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Miacoides2.jpg
Cool. Glad to see that you reject the use of common sense.
-
I agree evolution happens,
So evolution is a fact, we will bank that. Now lets rewind, you agree that evolution by natural selection happens?
just not on the scale you think it does.
Take it one step at a time. If you agree evolution by natural selection happens we can take baby steps to get to the scale.
-
I think most creationists admit that what they call "micro-evolution" happens - changes within a broad "kind", but not from one kind to another. They have come up with the pseudo-science of "baraminology", from Hebrew words meaning "created kind", but baramins are not recognised as a category by real scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind
-
So evolution is a fact, we will bank that. Now lets rewind, you agree that evolution by natural selection happens?
I agree that natural selection happens. It can be inferred from the changes in shape and/or size of Galapagos finch beaks and tortoise shells, depending on what food is available on the different islands.
If you think that the finches came from theropod dinosaurs I would point you to the fact that archeopteryx had flight feathers and was around before its supposed ancestors. In other words you can't infer non-bird ancestry for finches. Natural selection, or 'evolution' as you call it, has limits beyond which it cannot be observed to have occurred.
Take it one step at a time. If you agree evolution by natural selection happens we can take baby steps to get to the scale.
As I've shown you, no ancestor can be inferred for your poodle further back than an ancient canid.
-
So Spud, have you thought any more about the two questions you avoided before?
- Why is it that almost all the people who study these things (from many nationalities, cultures, and faiths) agree that the evidence for the Theory of Evolution and common decent is overwhelming and of the tiny, tiny minority that don't, pretty much all of them have an obvious religious agenda?
- If you agree that natural selection can produce small changes, what is it that stops these small changes from adding up to arbitrarily large changes given sufficient time?
You see, some amateur with little actual knowledge and a faith based disbelief can rummage around in the details (aided and abetted by creationist misinformation) and find endless supposed 'problems' and people can keep looking up the answers for them (as I have done on many occasions) and they'll just move on to something else.
It's an endless and utterly pointless exercise.
-
Except it is; although, since it's based on the concept of evidence - one with which you're unacquainted - it would avail nothing to try to explain it to you even if space permitted.
They're only useless when you come up against people who don't understand science.
Men of greater knowledge and qualifications than you do not agree Shaker.
But is is about truth in the end. Men of science have mixed ideas and so I am afraid your answer does not really apply to the situation at hand.
-
In which case it is just as useless for you to produce your above pessimistic message. Why not start taking some enjoyment in the capacity that humans have for trying to expand our knowledge and understanding of the world we all live in? It isn't all bad, you know. ;D
When you study everything Enki, the truth is that you choose your knowledge and the fact remains men and science regarding evolution have not been able to 'PROVE' anything have they?
-
When you study everything Enki, the truth is that you choose your knowledge and the fact remains men and science regarding evolution have not been able to 'PROVE' anything have they?
I don't study 'everything' but in the areas that I do study I try to absorb all sorts of knowledge. If I read a book, for instance, by David Bentley Hart on 'The Experience of God', I don't choose the knowledge, the ideas, the arguments that are contained therein. What I do is look at all such ideas, arguments and knowledge critically, often in the light of other ideas etc. that I have also absorbed.
As regards evolution, I find the body of evidence that supports it to be overwhelming, so, unless clear evidence can be produced that suggests that it is wrong or needs to be radically modified, then I'll happily go along with it. I can't prove it, but science isn't about 'proving' at all, if you bothered to acquaint yourself with basic scientific principles. I can't actually 'prove' anything in science, just as you can't either. What affects my viewpoint is evidence, the stronger the better. This is one reason why I remain an atheist. I find no evidence that any god exists. :)
-
When you study everything Enki, the truth is that you choose your knowledge and the fact remains men and science regarding evolution have not been able to 'PROVE' anything have they?
As I'm sure you know perfectly well, evolution by natural selection is as near proven as anything in science ever is.
-
Men of greater knowledge and qualifications than you do not agree Shaker.
But is is about truth in the end. Men of science have mixed ideas and so I am afraid your answer does not really apply to the situation at hand.
To say that "men of science have mixed ideas" in the context of the basic truth of evolution, is (apart from being sexist) misleading. Of those people who are qualified in, and study these things, almost all of them agree that the evidence for evolution is way beyond reasonable doubt. Of the tiny, tiny minority that disagree, almost all of them have an obvious religiously motivated reason to do so - they are obviously biased.
-
When you study everything Enki, the truth is that you choose your knowledge and the fact remains men and science regarding evolution have not been able to 'PROVE' anything have they?
Science doesn't deal in proofs. Maths and formal logic deal in proofs and they are able to because they are self contained abstractions. Science deals with the real world, messy and complex and always in a context of limited data. Science doesn't give us ultimate truth but it helps point us in the right direction through principals of evidence and reason; it is disingenuous to ignore the findings of science on the basis that they aren't pure maths or logic.
-
torridon,
If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation. Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.
-
torridon,
If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation. Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.
That is confused on several levels, still conflating concepts of 'proof' with 'evidence' and also complicated by a negative proof fallacy. Apart from all of which, there is abundant evidence of evolution in bacteria, which notoriously evolve rapidly, hence current concerns around antibiotic resistance. You managed to shoot yourself in the foot three times in a very short space somehow,
-
torridon,
If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation.
Then you certainly have some elephants - but how have you 'proved' the 'four' element?
Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.
Nope - you need to do some more homework, Spud, then you wouldn't make silly mistakes such as this.
-
So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.
No, you've just demonstrated your ignorance of both science in general and evolution in particular (again).
So you're back, have you thought any more about the two questions you avoided before (I've also added a third)?
- Why is it that almost all the people who study these things (from many nationalities, cultures, and faiths) agree that the evidence for the Theory of Evolution and common decent is overwhelming and of the tiny, tiny minority that don't, pretty much all of them have an obvious religious agenda?
- If you agree that natural selection can produce small changes, what is it that stops these small changes from adding up to arbitrarily large changes given sufficient time?
- If this is about science, why is it that creationist sites are riddled with misrepresentation, distortion, and falsehoods?
As I said before, some amateur with little actual knowledge and a faith based disbelief can rummage around in the details (aided and abetted by creationist misinformation) and find endless supposed 'problems' and people can keep looking up the answers for them and they'll just move on to something else.
It's an endless and utterly pointless exercise.
-
Then you certainly have some elephants - but how have you 'proved' the 'four' element?
Nope - you need to do some more homework, Spud, then you wouldn't make silly mistakes such as this.
I told you- I counted them, a method that is repeatable by anyone who has four of something.
That is confused on several levels, still conflating concepts of 'proof' with 'evidence' and also complicated by a negative proof fallacy. Apart from all of which, there is abundant evidence of evolution in bacteria, which notoriously evolve rapidly, hence current concerns around antibiotic resistance. You managed to shoot yourself in the foot three times in a very short space somehow,
Thank you, we now know what is meant by the word "evolve" and also what is not meant.
-
I thought that the proof that 1 + 1 = 2, involves a lengthy working out. But I think it's in Principia Mathematica. As Stranger said, God protect us from amateurs with prejudices.
-
I told you- I counted them, a method that is repeatable by anyone who has four of something.
And the conclusion you have drawn is scientifically illiterate - a simplistic misunderstanding of how evolution works. It is not a process that leads inevitably down one path. It does not always increase complexity or result in any specific outcome.
The evolution of a specific trait will generally only happen when there is some aspect of the environment that means that the trait confers an advantage. So, for example, bacteria will only develop immunity to an antibiotic if there the antibiotic is present in its environment.
Is the penny beginning to drop here at all?
Thank you, we now know what is meant by the word "evolve" and also what is not meant.
Don't be silly. How about the questions in #409 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15681.msg752122#msg752122), Spud ?
Don't you see how daft it is trying to claim that you (who are rather obviously undereducated in science in general and evolution in particular) have found some problem that means that almost all of the world's experts in the field are wrong?
-
torridon,
If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation. Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.
A thousand generations is nothing, it's about 14 days. It normally takes about 500 million years.
-
torridon,
If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation. Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.
Oh dear, you don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about. ::)
-
Oh dear, you don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about. ::)
I agree, for once. 1,000 generations is no time at all. In human beings, it takes us back about 25,000 years, and any evolutionary changes in humans in that time are insignificant.
-
I agree, for once. 1,000 generations is no time at all. In human beings, it takes us back about 25,000 years, and any evolutionary changes in humans in that time are insignificant.
You better have a lie down in case the shock of agreeing with me is too much for you! ;D ;D
-
- If you agree that natural selection can produce small changes, what is it that stops these small changes from adding up to arbitrarily large changes given sufficient time?
The best analogy I can think of is this: the first car was not a modified bicycle. The first airplane was not a modified car or bicycle. You could fix two bicycles together side by side and put a seat between them, but that won't make it a car. You need to build an engine. The first airplane wasn't a modified car, it had to be designed from scratch. They had to build an engine that pushes or pulls the vehicle through the air, not one that turns a set of wheels. Also a wing was needed to give lift.
Although the bicycle, car and airplane appeared in an apparently evolutionary sequence, they were made separately.
-
You better have a lie down in case the shock of agreeing with me is too much for you! ;D ;D
Steve might end up in H
-
The best analogy I can think of is this: the first car was not a modified bicycle. The first airplane was not a modified car or bicycle. You could fix two bicycles together side by side and put a seat between them, but that won't make it a car. You need to build an engine. The first airplane wasn't a modified car, it had to be designed from scratch. They had to build an engine that pushes or pulls the vehicle through the air, not one that turns a set of wheels. Also a wing was needed to give lift.
Although the bicycle, car and airplane appeared in an apparently evolutionary sequence, they were made separately.
If that is your best analogy then you need to work harder at analogies, Spud.
-
I suppose a car is a horse-drawn carriage, with an extra set of duplicated wheels, and a mutated horse for an engine!
-
If that is your best analogy then you need to work harder at analogies, Spud.
I'm saying that many small changes don't necessarily add up to arbitrary changes given sufficient time
-
The best analogy I can think of is this: the first car was not a modified bicycle. The first airplane was not a modified car or bicycle. You could fix two bicycles together side by side and put a seat between them, but that won't make it a car. You need to build an engine. The first airplane wasn't a modified car, it had to be designed from scratch. They had to build an engine that pushes or pulls the vehicle through the air, not one that turns a set of wheels. Also a wing was needed to give lift.
Although the bicycle, car and airplane appeared in an apparently evolutionary sequence, they were made separately.
Oh well then, if you put it like that, obviously nearly all the world's experts are wrong and you are right!
Err, hang on though, what you said actually has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution so you didn't even answer the question you quoted, let alone the other ones you continue to ignore... ::)
-
I'm saying that many small changes don't necessarily add up to arbitrary changes given sufficient time
Except you aren't considering items that exhibit small changes due to inheritance, variation, and natural selection. Every change to human designed objects comes about through deliberate action. There no mechanism for tiny changes that make things better suited to their environment building up over time.
Am I really having to point this out?
-
I'm saying that many small changes don't necessarily add up to arbitrary changes given sufficient time
So you are: sadly your case isn't helped by an irrelevant analogy.
-
The best analogy I can think of is this: the first car was not a modified bicycle. The first airplane was not a modified car or bicycle. You could fix two bicycles together side by side and put a seat between them, but that won't make it a car. You need to build an engine. The first airplane wasn't a modified car, it had to be designed from scratch. They had to build an engine that pushes or pulls the vehicle through the air, not one that turns a set of wheels. Also a wing was needed to give lift.
Although the bicycle, car and airplane appeared in an apparently evolutionary sequence, they were made separately.
Exactly - and animals ARE modified from earlier animals! Whales have vestigial rear legs, mammalian inner ears are modified from the jaws of reptiles, humans have vestigial tails, and so on - you have just provided excellent evidence for evolution!
-
Except, Steve, for the fact that Spud's process appears to contain a desire for "improvement" - and this implies intent and hence the presence of a designer.
The real process of natural selection involves a constant flow of mutations - the vast majority of which are destined never to become a permanent part of a species genotype.
-
Exactly - and animals ARE modified from earlier animals! Whales have vestigial rear legs, mammalian inner ears are modified from the jaws of reptiles, humans have vestigial tails, and so on - you have just provided excellent evidence for evolution!
Steve, thanks! I was thinking of how a bacteria could turn into a multicellular organism, but I suppose this will be explained at some point too. But you have a good point. I've been through all three examples before, but need to re-read about them. The whale rear legs have been modified to support the reproductive organs, the embryonic tail is due to rapid lengthening of the vertebral column and the ear ossicles at some point became used for hearing not chewing, but we will look at that tomorrow as I have a busy evening.
-
The best analogy I can think of is this: the first car was not a modified bicycle. The first airplane was not a modified car or bicycle. You could fix two bicycles together side by side and put a seat between them, but that won't make it a car. You need to build an engine. The first airplane wasn't a modified car, it had to be designed from scratch. They had to build an engine that pushes or pulls the vehicle through the air, not one that turns a set of wheels. Also a wing was needed to give lift.
Although the bicycle, car and airplane appeared in an apparently evolutionary sequence, they were made separately.
Nobody is disputing the fact that cars, aeroplanes and bicycles were all designed.
-
I was thinking of how a bacteria could turn into a multicellular organism, but I suppose this will be explained at some point too. But you have a good point. I've been through all three examples before, but need to re-read about them. The whale rear legs have been modified to support the reproductive organs, the embryonic tail is due to rapid lengthening of the vertebral column and the ear ossicles at some point became used for hearing not chewing, but we will look at that tomorrow as I have a busy evening.
I know I have made this point before, Spud, but you are constantly giving me the impression that you think that evolution is a purposeful activity with goals and objectives - even short term objectives.
This is not the case. There are no objectives in natural selection. There is no intention. There is no grand design. Everything we see is the result of fortunate accident. In order for successful organisms to exist today, countless species have disappeared because they were not adapted to be able to cope with environmental change.
-
Exactly - and animals ARE modified from earlier animals! Whales have vestigial rear legs, mammalian inner ears are modified from the jaws of reptiles, humans have vestigial tails, and so on - you have just provided excellent evidence for evolution!
Hi Steve,
You made an interesting point, and I would like to address the human tail first. Yes, the human embryo appears to have a tail at around 5 weeks. But it does not contain any of the vertebrae-forming tissues, so is not a tail in the sense that you imply. It contains the hindgut, which gives rise to the distal third of the transverse colon, the descending colon, sigmoid, rectum, and upper part of the anal canal. Also the endoderm of the hindgut forms the internal lining of the bladder and urethra. (From Langman's Medical Embryology).
-
For more information on the development of the human tail bud:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1741-4520.2012.00387.x
-
Hi Steve,
You made an interesting point, and I would like to address the human tail first. Yes, the human embryo appears to have a tail at around 5 weeks. But it does not contain any of the vertebrae-forming tissues, so is not a tail in the sense that you imply. It contains the hindgut, which gives rise to the distal third of the transverse colon, the descending colon, sigmoid, rectum, and upper part of the anal canal. Also the endoderm of the hindgut forms the internal lining of the bladder and urethra. (From Langman's Medical Embryology).
Human adults have a vestigial tail. Did you not know that?
-
Human adults have a vestigial tail. Did you not know that?
Hypothesis dressed up as fact.
-
Hypothesis dressed up as fact.
No. It’s definitely there.
-
No. It’s definitely there.
You want to call three fused, internal bones to which muscles important for urinary and bowel control are attached, a tail.... fine... You also want to say it's been converted from an external tail that was used for balance in the trees... evidence required I think.
-
How about the questions, Spud?
- Why is it that almost all the people who study these things (from many nationalities, cultures, and faiths) agree that the evidence for the Theory of Evolution and common decent is overwhelming and of the tiny, tiny minority that don't, pretty much all of them have an obvious religious agenda?
- If you agree that natural selection can produce small changes, what is it that stops these small changes from adding up to arbitrarily large changes given sufficient time?
- If this is about science, why is it that creationist sites are riddled with misrepresentation, distortion, and falsehoods?
I'm not counting the utterly irrelevant 'analogy' for 2, it was too silly. Surely you must see the absurdity of an ill-informed amateur looking for some detail that will show that nearly all the world's experts are wrong?
-
How about the questions, Spud?
- Why is it that almost all the people who study these things (from many nationalities, cultures, and faiths) agree that the evidence for the Theory of Evolution and common decent is overwhelming and of the tiny, tiny minority that don't, pretty much all of them have an obvious religious agenda?
- If you agree that natural selection can produce small changes, what is it that stops these small changes from adding up to arbitrarily large changes given sufficient time?
- If this is about science, why is it that creationist sites are riddled with misrepresentation, distortion, and falsehoods?
I'm not counting the utterly irrelevant 'analogy' for 2, it was too silly. Surely you must see the absurdity of an ill-informed amateur looking for some detail that will show that nearly all the world's experts are wrong?
Multitudes of people can be wrong. Evolution is not true just because they agree it is.
My irrelevant analogy led to three examples, one of which I've focused on in detail because I've read the small print before. Each of the many examples put forward by evolutionists has to be looked at properly, and yes, creationist websites need to be more professional.
-
Multitudes of people can be wrong. Evolution is not true just because they agree it is.
Multitudes of people can be wrong.
Christianity is not true just because they agree it is.
Creationism is not true just because they agree it is.
-
Multitudes of people can be wrong. Evolution is not true just because they agree it is.
Yes multitudes of people can be wrong and nothing is true just because people agree. We need to draw conclusions based on the evidence.
In this instance, we have an almost complete consensus amongst the experts who have studied the evidence, that said evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, and almost all of the dissenters have an obvious, religious bias. Given that you are (very obviously) an amateur, not only in evolution but in science in general, what do you think the chances are that you would be able to spot something in the detail of the evidence that has somehow eluded almost all of the experts and that would bring down the entire theory?
Bear in mind also that the evidence for this theory comes from more than one area of study; it was first developed before the discovery of genetics and could easily have been falsified by it, but instead was spectacularly confirmed - to the extent that the entire case for evolution could be made from genetics alone.
My irrelevant analogy led to three examples...
Your analogy was about manufactured items and was hence totally irrelevant. Other people brought up vestigial organs.
-
Multitudes of people can be wrong. Evolution is not true just because they agree it is.
Nobody's suggesting otherwise. Evolution is true because the evidence for it is overwhelming.
-
Yes multitudes of people can be wrong and nothing is true just because people agree. We need to draw conclusions based on the evidence.
In this instance, we have an almost complete consensus amongst the experts who have studied the evidence, that said evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, and almost all of the dissenters have an obvious, religious bias. Given that you are (very obviously) an amateur, not only in evolution but in science in general, what do you think the chances are that you would be able to spot something in the detail of the evidence that has somehow eluded almost all of the experts and that would bring down the entire theory?
Bear in mind also that the evidence for this theory comes from more than one area of study; it was first developed before the discovery of genetics and could easily have been falsified by it, but instead was spectacularly confirmed - to the extent that the entire case for evolution could be made from genetics alone.
Your analogy was about manufactured items and was hence totally irrelevant. Other people brought up vestigial organs.
I know you are all really clever and can spell "Tuesday" etc, but I am a little bit clever, and I stuck out a 4 year BSc which I passed. I only got a 2:2 though and after 2 years went in a different direction, so you are right, I am an amateur. I'm happy to look through examples one by one and at the moment I think we are on tails and waiting for someone to respond to #435.
-
I know you are all really clever and can spell "Tuesday" etc, but I am a little bit clever, and I stuck out a 4 year BSc which I passed. I only got a 2:2 though and after 2 years went in a different direction, so you are right, I am an amateur. I'm happy to look through examples one by one and at the moment I think we are on tails and waiting for someone to respond to #435.
Sarcasm is not an argument.
-
Sarcasm is not an argument.
It was a compliment, Steve. I was referring to Owl from Winnie the Pooh (respected for his Brain and his ability to spell Tuesday).
-
I don't study 'everything' but in the areas that I do study I try to absorb all sorts of knowledge. If I read a book, for instance, by David Bentley Hart on 'The Experience of God', I don't choose the knowledge, the ideas, the arguments that are contained therein. What I do is look at all such ideas, arguments and knowledge critically, often in the light of other ideas etc. that I have also absorbed.
As regards evolution, I find the body of evidence that supports it to be overwhelming, so, unless clear evidence can be produced that suggests that it is wrong or needs to be radically modified, then I'll happily go along with it. I can't prove it, but science isn't about 'proving' at all, if you bothered to acquaint yourself with basic scientific principles. I can't actually 'prove' anything in science, just as you can't either. What affects my viewpoint is evidence, the stronger the better. This is one reason why I remain an atheist. I find no evidence that any god exists. :)
Enki, not questioning the method nor your ability to absorb. Evidence can be circumstantial or positive proof. But in the case of science it is mainly for theory just circumstantial. Reading and knowing only what you are told about science is not the same as the ability to do everything personally and prove it correct. God heals people and God does what he says he will. Things come to pass as he foretold. Now the evidence you can't find is the evidence you want only to prove to yourself if a God. When the evidence should be what God does which shows he is real because you want to find who God is and believe. Sometimes the reason for knowing something can be very different for individuals. I have seen God heal so I cannot deny God exists and have proof which for me is the only type which really counts.
-
As I'm sure you know perfectly well, evolution by natural selection is as near proven as anything in science ever is.
Survival of the fittest? There is no evidence of natural selection. There is evidence that when people started eating properly and their bodies received nutrition they survived and as today proves with medical treatment are living longer. But their is not evidence man changed naturally and suddenly better able to survive.
We know life is really about many things.. We see the different types of sickness and illness. Life is general people better equipped to live and survive longer. But survival is about is having enough to eat and drink so live in the right shelter. We did not get fitter by the body adapting... we got fitter by eating and drinking the right food.
-
To say that "men of science have mixed ideas" in the context of the basic truth of evolution, is (apart from being sexist) misleading. Of those people who are qualified in, and study these things, almost all of them agree that the evidence for evolution is way beyond reasonable doubt. Of the tiny, tiny minority that disagree, almost all of them have an obvious religiously motivated reason to do so - they are obviously biased.
Bad, bad, bad...
Not a good idea is it to use qualified because they are man made qualification based on a lot of suppositions and maybes. Theories which cannot all be proved and the teachings of man thus so far.
Man is arrogant and many just follow what they choose to believe like the emperors new clothes afraid to look stupid. Evolution if it existed would have new species abounding everyday.
It never happened because it does not happen now. We have no proof and never had that species evolved into better species and survived. Look at today, without the mod cons of electricity, Gas, housing and water where would be? Then there is still the question of baby or man first. We all know if babies were first no humans would exist. So the reality is as always. Adults in all species has to have come first. Nothing and I mean nothing would have been here today had it not been so. There is more logical evidence when it comes man thinking for himself in that than anything. When we start here we know scientist do not have the answers we really need.
-
Survival of the fittest? There is no evidence of natural selection. There is evidence that when people started eating properly and their bodies received nutrition they survived and as today proves with medical treatment are living longer. But their is not evidence man changed naturally and suddenly better able to survive.
We know life is really about many things.. We see the different types of sickness and illness. Life is general people better equipped to live and survive longer. But survival is about is having enough to eat and drink so live in the right shelter. We did not get fitter by the body adapting... we got fitter by eating and drinking the right food.
What on earth are you on about? I'm talking about evolution generally, not just humans, and there never was a time in the prehistorical past when humans didn't eat properly: the stone-age diet was pretty much ideal. Stone-age people's lives were dangerous, and they had no effective medicine, so their life-expectancy was presumably low, but that had nothing to do with their diet.
-
Bad, bad, bad...
Not a good idea is it to use qualified because they are man made qualification based on a lot of suppositions and maybes. Theories which cannot all be proved and the teachings of man thus so far.
Man is arrogant and many just follow what they choose to believe like the emperors new clothes afraid to look stupid. Evolution if it existed would have new species abounding everyday.
It never happened because it does not happen now. We have no proof and never had that species evolved into better species and survived.
Actually, there are dozens if not hundreds of examples of the spontaneous evolution of new species in the wild which have been observed.
-
Survival of the fittest? There is no evidence of natural selection. There is evidence that when people started eating properly and their bodies received nutrition they survived and as today proves with medical treatment are living longer. But their is not evidence man changed naturally and suddenly better able to survive.
We know life is really about many things.. We see the different types of sickness and illness. Life is general people better equipped to live and survive longer. But survival is about is having enough to eat and drink so live in the right shelter. We did not get fitter by the body adapting... we got fitter by eating and drinking the right food.
Evidence of natural selection is all around us. How do you imagine Europeans got their white skin ? It wasn't because they 'started eating properly'. Have you never come across a European ?
-
Bad, bad, bad...
Not a good idea is it to use qualified because they are man made qualification based on a lot of suppositions and maybes. Theories which cannot all be proved and the teachings of man thus so far.
So if you fall ill, you avoid going to see the doctor, since they have 'man made' qualifications ?
Really ?
Somehow, I don't believe you Sassy. Start being honest.
-
Not a good idea is it to use qualified because they are man made qualification based on a lot of suppositions and maybes. Theories which cannot all be proved and the teachings of man thus so far.
Man is arrogant and many just follow what they choose to believe like the emperors new clothes afraid to look stupid.
It's you who brought up qualification, Sassy: "Men of greater knowledge and qualifications than you do not agree Shaker." (#400 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15681.msg751641#msg751641))
Evolution if it existed would have new species abounding everyday.
No we wouldn't expect them everyday, but we do observe them, see for example:
Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/)
It never happened because it does not happen now. We have no proof and never had that species evolved into better species and survived. Look at today, without the mod cons of electricity, Gas, housing and water where would be?
You really don't understand the first thing about the Theory of Evolution, do you?
Then there is still the question of baby or man first. We all know if babies were first no humans would exist. So the reality is as always. Adults in all species has to have come first. Nothing and I mean nothing would have been here today had it not been so. There is more logical evidence when it comes man thinking for himself in that than anything. When we start here we know scientist do not have the answers we really need.
Baby or adult first - are you actually serious?
Evolution is gradual. Imagine you had photos of a person, taken every day of their life, you would never see much difference between each one and the next one, but over (say) 90 years worth, you'd see a baby turn into and old person. Similarly, if you took each generation, starting with modern humans, back about 6-8 million years, you'd get to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees but, along the way, none of the children would be much different from their parents.
Here's a hint: if you want to criticise something it's best you take the trouble to at least find out the basics about it first. It saves you from making a fool of yourself...
-
Survival of the fittest? There is no evidence of natural selection.
There is, actually; you are bearing false witness. Even most creationists aren't stupid or dishonest enough to deny natural selection.
The good old Peppered Moth is the classic example (see: Peppered moth evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution)). This has more recently been traced to a particular (beneficial in the environment of the time) mutation that probably happened around 1819: Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36424768).
-
Enki, not questioning the method nor your ability to absorb. Evidence can be circumstantial or positive proof. But in the case of science it is mainly for theory just circumstantial. Reading and knowing only what you are told about science is not the same as the ability to do everything personally and prove it correct. God heals people and God does what he says he will. Things come to pass as he foretold. Now the evidence you can't find is the evidence you want only to prove to yourself if a God. When the evidence should be what God does which shows he is real because you want to find who God is and believe. Sometimes the reason for knowing something can be very different for individuals. I have seen God heal so I cannot deny God exists and have proof which for me is the only type which really counts.
Sassy,
Science involves observing and measuring things and attempting to produce coherent theories which attempt to explain the workings of the natural world. As more facts become available, theories can be altered or discarded as is appropriate in the light of any new evidence. At no point is anything regarded as ultimate 'proof'. This is one of the strengths of science, and encourages the objectivity that science relies on. In this way, science has much more chance of revealing truths about the natural world than any purely subjective approach. Of course there is much more to scientific methodology than this,(e.g. testing, forecasting, peer review) and I suggest that science has been shown to be eminently successful by using this approach.
I don't simply read or accept what I am told, Sassy. I employ my critical faculties to assess any scientific information, and make my judgments on the basis of credibility. That is one reason why, for instance, I think that we don't live on a flat earth or that the sun does not revolve around the earth.
As far as your 'God' is concerned, I have no belief in it at all. As it is a supernatural proposition, science has little to say about it. However when one makes statements like 'God heals people' then I have to beg to differ. There is no evidence that it heals people. There is evidence that having some sort of faith can have a placebo effect however.
Now the evidence you can't find is the evidence you want only to prove to yourself if a God. When the evidence should be what God does which shows he is real because you want to find who God is and believe. Sometimes the reason for knowing something can be very different for individuals.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, as it seems rather confused. I can only say that I find no evidence that any god does anything. As far as personal experience goes, I have had no occasion to believe that there is a god. I'm quite happy if others believe in their particular gods. That's up to them. If you think that you have seen your particular god heal, then carry on believing in it. For me. I see no such evidence, only anecdote, which doesn't carry much weight in science.
I have seen God heal so I cannot deny God exists and have proof which for me is the only type which really counts.
Fine. Whatever floats your boat. Just don't ask me to agree with your sentiments, because I don't.
Now back to the actual topic under discussion hopefully.
-
Survival of the fittest? There is no evidence of natural selection. There is evidence that when people started eating properly and their bodies received nutrition they survived and as today proves with medical treatment are living longer. But their is not evidence man changed naturally and suddenly better able to survive.
We know life is really about many things.. We see the different types of sickness and illness. Life is general people better equipped to live and survive longer. But survival is about is having enough to eat and drink so live in the right shelter. We did not get fitter by the body adapting... we got fitter by eating and drinking the right food.
Sassy, you've got it wrong again. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the most healthy. It has never meant survival of the most healthy. It has nothing to do with sickness and health.
The expression was coined by Herbert Spencer and it refers to the individuals who are most successful in producing surviving offspring.
I recall hearing of an example involving worms and cyanide (I think possibly in Devon). Some land was contaminated with cyanide which is poisonous to many species - including earthworms. Some decades later, the land was inspected and was found to still be contaminated. However it contained a large number of active earthworms. They were descended from a small number of worms - possibly only one - whose genome included a mutation which provided immunity from the poisonous effects of cyanide. Those worms - or that worm - had been the fittest in that colony.
Perhaps "survival of the most fitted to survive" expresses the intention better.
-
There is, actually; you are bearing false witness. Even most creationists aren't stupid or dishonest enough to deny natural selection.
The good old Peppered Moth is the classic example (see: Peppered moth evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution)). This has more recently been traced to a particular (beneficial in the environment of the time) mutation that probably happened around 1819: Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36424768).
Love the pun. But please note the distinction between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection certainly happened and enabled the moth to survive (in a darkened form) in industrial areas. But the mutation that led to the dark form would reduce the moth's survival chances in its natural habitat, clean woods and trees. It appears to be a degradation of genetic information, so therefore the title "Peppered moth evolution" is incorrect.
-
Love the pun. But please note the distinction between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection certainly happened and enabled the moth to survive (in a darkened form) in industrial areas. But the mutation that led to the dark form would reduce the moth's survival chances in its natural habitat, clean woods and trees. It appears to be a degradation of genetic information, so therefore the title "Peppered moth evolution" is incorrect.
Since when is natural selection a separate thing from the TofE?
-
But please note the distinction between natural selection and evolution.
I know the distinction but, from what follows, it doesn't look as if you do.
Natural selection certainly happened and enabled the moth to survive (in a darkened form) in industrial areas. But the mutation that led to the dark form would reduce the moth's survival chances in its natural habitat, clean woods and trees.
Natural selection always acts to make populations better suited to the environment they are in - that's why I added the comment "(beneficial in the environment of the time)". There is no evolutionary concept of a "natural habitat" and your comment about it couldn't be less relevant.
It appears to be a degradation of genetic information...
So, how are you measuring this "degradation of genetic information"?
Here is more information: Jumping gene turned peppered moths the color of soot (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/jumping-gene-turned-peppered-moths-color-soot) and the actual paper here (pdf): The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element (https://rnajc.ucsf.edu/sites/rnajc.ucsf.edu/files/nature17951.pdf).
...so therefore the title "Peppered moth evolution" is incorrect.
Drivel. Even if you manage to define and demonstrate a "degradation of genetic information", that does not mean that it isn't evolution. Evolution isn't confined to making things more complex or adding information, it can go in any direction, depending on the environment and what variations become available to natural selection.
-
Sassy, you've got it wrong again. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the most healthy. It has never meant survival of the most healthy. It has nothing to do with sickness and health.
The expression was coined by Herbert Spencer and it refers to the individuals who are most successful in producing surviving offspring.
I recall hearing of an example involving worms and cyanide (I think possibly in Devon). Some land was contaminated with cyanide which is poisonous to many species - including earthworms. Some decades later, the land was inspected and was found to still be contaminated. However it contained a large number of active earthworms. They were descended from a small number of worms - possibly only one - whose genome included a mutation which provided immunity from the poisonous effects of cyanide. Those worms - or that worm - had been the fittest in that colony.
Perhaps "survival of the most fitted to survive" expresses the intention better.
I agree. Most fitted to survive long enough to have offspring in the environment.
-
Love the pun. But please note the distinction between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection certainly happened and enabled the moth to survive (in a darkened form) in industrial areas. But the mutation that led to the dark form would reduce the moth's survival chances in its natural habitat, clean woods and trees. It appears to be a degradation of genetic information, so therefore the title "Peppered moth evolution" is incorrect.
You are quite right, there is a distinction between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection is the main driving force behind evolution and the peppered moths are an excellent example of this whole process. Of course the mutation that led to the melanistic form would reduce the non melanistic moth's survival in the industrial habitat, just as when the environment became cleaner or less industialised, the melanistic form's survival was reduced. That's how natural selection works, Spud. A Mutation isn't necessarily a degradation of information. Indeed, the mutation event in this case has been explained as an insertion event in the gene cortex.
Whether you like it or not, the peppered moth is an excellent recent example of evolution in action. The article in Wiki is not incorrect.
It's also worth looking at this fairly recent article in 'Nature'
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110414/full/news.2011.238.html
I'll go by those who have researched the subject, Spud, rather than take notice of your assertions. :)
-
I know the distinction but, from what follows, it doesn't look as if you do.
Natural selection always acts to make populations better suited to the environment they are in - that's why I added the comment "(beneficial in the environment of the time)". There is no evolutionary concept of a "natural habitat" and your comment about it couldn't be less relevant.
So, how are you measuring this "degradation of genetic information"?
Here is more information: Jumping gene turned peppered moths the color of soot (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/jumping-gene-turned-peppered-moths-color-soot) and the actual paper here (pdf): The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element (https://rnajc.ucsf.edu/sites/rnajc.ucsf.edu/files/nature17951.pdf).
Drivel. Even if you manage to define and demonstrate a "degradation of genetic information", that does not mean that it isn't evolution. Evolution isn't confined to making things more complex or adding information, it can go in any direction, depending on the environment and what variations become available to natural selection.
Great, so by your definition evolution can go in any direction. We are primarily concerned here with evolution that makes something more complex, the sort of evolution that created scales on moths' wings, or the wing itself. Changing the colour of the scales in the peppered moth means that the ability to make some scales white and some black is lost- they are all black: looks like a decrease in complexity. I suspect all changes due to mutation are like this
-
Great, so by your definition evolution can go in any direction. We are primarily concerned here with evolution that makes something more complex, the sort of evolution that created scales on moths' wings, or the wing itself. Changing the colour of the scales in the peppered moth means that the ability to make some scales white and some black is lost- they are all black: looks like a decrease in complexity. I suspect all changes due to mutation are like this
Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations. Hence if you are going to suggest that a mutation must lead to a decrease in complexity(which I don't accept), then its reversal must logically lead to an increase in complexity. In which case your statement that you suspect that all mutation changes lead to a decrease in complexity must be wrong.
Actually one of the ways in which new genes evolve is by an existing gene being copied. Then each copy is able to mutate in different directions.
-
Since when is natural selection a separate thing from the TofE?
Well, not in the way Spud would like to have it. Evolution by Natural Selection has become the standard theory for a long time (and as far as I'm concerned, the only true one).
However, there have been others in the past: Evolution via the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics (Lamarck); Evolution via 'Life Force' (Bergson, Hans Driesch, and maybe Koestler). Even "Evolution via Extraterrestrial Intervention" (less said about that the better :) )
-
Great, so by your definition evolution can go in any direction.
It's not my definition, Spud. It's something you would know if you'd read anything much about the subject (apart from creationist misinformation and lies).
We are primarily concerned here with evolution that makes something more complex, the sort of evolution that created scales on moths' wings, or the wing itself.
Who's this 'we'? I brought up the peppered moth (#452 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15681.msg753068#msg753068)), as a classic example, because Sassy said there there was no evidence of natural selection.
Changing the colour of the scales in the peppered moth means that the ability to make some scales white and some black is lost- they are all black: looks like a decrease in complexity.
So (to answer the question I put to you) you measure "genetic information" by your subjective assessment of the phenotype?
I suspect all changes due to mutation are like this
-sigh-
Do try to think about this. Mutations are random. There is nothing that directs it to be useful or not useful, to add 'complexity' (however you want to define it) or remove it. Natural selection is how those mutations that are useful (make individuals better able to produce offspring in the environment) spread through the population. It would be amazing if mutations always reduced 'complexity' and we'd have to be asking why.
See: Claim CB102. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)
A particularly nice example is the evolution of tricolour vision in primates, which happened through gene duplication and subsequent mutation. See: The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/9/7/629.long) and also The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll (http://seanbcarroll.com/the-making-of-the-fittest/).
-
This bollocks about mutations being unable to add information is parrotted by creationists, most with no scientific training, regularly. As the link says, they never define "information".
-
It's not my definition, Spud. It's something you would know if you'd read anything much about the subject (apart from creationist misinformation and lies).
Who's this 'we'? I brought up the peppered moth (#452 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15681.msg753068#msg753068)), as a classic example, because Sassy said there there was no evidence of natural selection.
So (to answer the question I put to you) you measure "genetic information" by your subjective assessment of the phenotype?
-sigh-
Do try to think about this. Mutations are random. There is nothing that directs it to be useful or not useful, to add 'complexity' (however you want to define it) or remove it. Natural selection is how those mutations that are useful (make individuals better able to produce offspring in the environment) spread through the population. It would be amazing if mutations always reduced 'complexity' and we'd have to be asking why.
See: Claim CB102. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)
A particularly nice example is the evolution of tricolour vision in primates, which happened through gene duplication and subsequent mutation. See: The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/9/7/629.long) and also The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll (http://seanbcarroll.com/the-making-of-the-fittest/).
Holy cycle clips Stranger, I'm not sure what's worse, evolution of trichromatic vision or intermediate period pharaohs. Give me a few days to read that one.
-
Holy cycle clips Stranger, I'm not sure what's worse, evolution of trichromatic vision or intermediate period pharaohs. Give me a few days to read that one.
Fine but you really should read a decent (non-creationist) book on the basics. Thinking that evolution only works in one direction is indicative of fundamental misunderstanding.
On information increase/decrease - the simple argument in enki's post #461 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15681.msg753566#msg753566) should be enough.
-
Fine but you really should read a decent (non-creationist) book on the basics. Thinking that evolution only works in one direction is indicative of fundamental misunderstanding.
On information increase/decrease - the simple argument in enki's post #461 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15681.msg753566#msg753566) should be enough.
I've read the abstract and get the gist of what it's saying. I'd need week or two to read the whole paper. Don't worry, there are no creationist articles on trichromacy, just a few passing comments. So my view will be based on reading the article.
-
It's not my definition, Spud. It's something you would know if you'd read anything much about the subject (apart from creationist misinformation and lies).
The definition of 'evolve' is "to develop gradually, or to cause something or someone to develop gradually". The definition of 'develop' is "to (cause something to) grow or change into a more advanced, larger, or stronger form".
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/develop
The creationist websites are simply following this definition.
Who's this 'we'?
Those of us discussing why evolution is or isn't true. Everyone agrees that adaptation through mutation etc happens, but is this evolution according to the definition given above?
I brought up the peppered moth (#452 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15681.msg753068#msg753068)), as a classic example, because Sassy said there there was no evidence of natural selection.
Yes, but I thought evolution meant becoming more advanced, as in the Cambridge dictionary definition, so I questioned the Wikipedia title "evolution of the peppered moth".
So (to answer the question I put to you) you measure "genetic information" by your subjective assessment of the phenotype?
-sigh-
Your sciencenews.org article says the researchers speculated that the mutation caused the wing scales to develop more slowly, giving them enough time to become black. You could say that there is increased genetic information, but the black offspring are less adaptable.
Do try to think about this. Mutations are random. There is nothing that directs it to be useful or not useful, to add 'complexity' (however you want to define it) or remove it. Natural selection is how those mutations that are useful (make individuals better able to produce offspring in the environment) spread through the population. It would be amazing if mutations always reduced 'complexity' and we'd have to be asking why.
See: Claim CB102. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)
A particularly nice example is the evolution of tricolour vision in primates, which happened through gene duplication and subsequent mutation. See: The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/9/7/629.long)
This appears to be hypothesis that certain genetic mutations have taken place in the distant past. From what I read of observed instances of speciation, mutation always leads to a decreased ability of the offspring to adapt. For example, blind cave fish lose their eyes; swallows nesting on motorway bridges "evolve" shorter wings which enable a more vertical take-off for avoiding cars, but may affect their ability to migrate long distances.
and also The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll (http://seanbcarroll.com/the-making-of-the-fittest/).
Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations.
Any examples? Are you sure this can happen without human intervention?
-
Yes, but I thought evolution meant becoming more advanced,
That depends on what you mean by more advanced. If you mean "more complex" you are definitely wrong. If you mean "better suited to the the environment in respect of being able to reproduce" you might have a point.
There are plenty of examples of evolution taking organisms in a less complex direction in order to be more suited to reproducing in their environment.
-
The definition of 'evolve' is "to develop gradually, or to cause something or someone to develop gradually". The definition of 'develop' is "to (cause something to) grow or change into a more advanced, larger, or stronger form".
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/develop
The creationist websites are simply following this definition.
That will be because they are being dishonest or simply clueless. We are talking about the term 'evolution' in the context of a specific scientific theory, not how the word 'evolve' is used generally. This is why I said you should get a general introduction. You (and the creationists) are simply wrong about this, and if you read any basic (non-creationist) text on the subject this should become clear. Evolutionary change always makes a population better able to reproduce in its environment, whether that means more complex or less.
From wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution):
"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." [my emphasis]
"A common misconception is that evolution has goals, long-term plans, or an innate tendency for "progress", as expressed in beliefs such as orthogenesis and evolutionism; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity."
Or from Evolution 101 (https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02)
"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)."
Those of us discussing why evolution is or isn't true.
Evolution is one of the best established theories in the history of science. It is every bit as well established as the "theory" that matter is made of atoms. It's only (as I pointed out before) religious fundamentalists, the ignorant, and the deceived, that question it.
Seriously.
Everyone agrees that adaptation through mutation etc happens...
Sassy didn't agree that natural selection happened.
Your sciencenews.org article says the researchers speculated that the mutation caused the wing scales to develop more slowly, giving them enough time to become black. You could say that there is increased genetic information, but the black offspring are less adaptable.
Genetic information? Less adaptable? You keep on using these terms without saying what you mean or how you could measure them.
Any examples? Are you sure this can happen without human intervention?
Claim CB102. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)
Of course if a mutation can cause a change, it can cause the opposite change. How could it not? You do get that this is basically a digital code (https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/%3C?%20echo%20$baseURL;%20?%3E_0_0/mutations_03)? If a random mutation can change (say) CTGGAG to CTGGGG, then a random mutation can make the reverse change.
The point is that if you insist that any mutation must decrease 'genetic information' and then and you observe CTGGAG to CTGGGG and call it a decrease, then any change from CTGGGG to CTGGAG must be an increase in information, but it is obviously just as likely.
-
Evolution is one of the best established theories in the history of science. It is every bit as well established as the "theory" that matter is made of atoms. It's only (as I pointed out before) religious fundamentalists, the ignorant, and the deceived, that question it.
Seriously.
See: 'Why Evolution Is True' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig) (talk by Jerry Coyne).
-
Spud,
Stranger has admirably covered answers to your responses, but just to add a little on the subject of mutations. The important thing about mutations is that they are not directed, but random.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/lederberg_01
If they are random, then whatever changed can be changed again as Stranger has explained. If a DNA base A can mutate to a G, then there is no reason that it cannot mutate back to an A.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0046817703004064?via%3Dihub
You might also find this article to be interesting:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/
-
Thanks for these links. They are interesting, especially the one about hereditary tyrosinaemia. I still think that new variants have less ability to adapt than their ancestors, and so cannot become more complex as the ToE requires. For example if you put a population of negroid people in Scotland and do not allow them to have kids with white people, will their skin eventually turn white over many generations? Probably not. White and black people descended from something in-between, in whom there was the potential for white or black skin to develop.
-
as the ToE requires.
What exactly does the TOE require?
-
...... so cannot become more complex as the ToE requires.
That is not a requirement of the ToE.
-
I still think that new variants have less ability to adapt than their ancestors...
How do you know, and how are you going to define and measure "ability to adapt"?
...and so cannot become more complex as the ToE requires.
You really aren't paying attention, are you? The Theory of Evolution does not require such an increase.
For example if you put a population of negroid people in Scotland and do not allow them to have kids with white people, will their skin eventually turn white over many generations? Probably not. White and black people descended from something in-between, in whom there was the potential for white or black skin to develop.
Meanwhile, in the real world of evidence...
Comparisons between known skin pigmentation genes in chimpanzees and modern Africans show that dark skin evolved along with the loss of body hair about 1.2 million years ago and that this common ancestor had dark skin. Investigations into dark skinned populations in South Asia and Melanesia indicate that skin pigmentation in these populations is due to the preservation of this ancestral state and not due to new variations on a previously lightened population.
-- Human skin color (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Genetics)
Rather than ignoring what you've already been told and making stuff up, I suggest again that you should consider why pretty much everybody who spends their lives studying this subject agrees that the Theory of Evolution is established way beyond reasonable doubt, and the tiny, tiny minority that don't, are obviously biased by religion.
-
If they are random, then whatever changed can be changed again as Stranger has explained. If a DNA base A can mutate to a G, then there is no reason that it cannot mutate back to an A.
and that disproves definitively the nonsense about mutations only destroying information. If an original mutation destroys information, then the reversion (reverse mutation) must add information.
-
How do you know, and how are you going to define and measure "ability to adapt"?
Nine examples from the present which demonstrate that "when one looks at the evidence in the real world, stand-out examples of natural selection and mutations show a consistent loss or mere maintenance of genetic information, not the gains that microbes-to-man evolution requires:"
See:
https://creation.com/natural-selection-can-eliminate-never-create
You really aren't paying attention, are you? The Theory of Evolution does not require such an increase.
Perhaps not. The question is still, did all life arise from a common ancestor though.
Meanwhile, in the real world of evidence...
Comparisons between known skin pigmentation genes in chimpanzees and modern Africans show that dark skin evolved along with the loss of body hair about 1.2 million years ago and that this common ancestor had dark skin. Investigations into dark skinned populations in South Asia and Melanesia indicate that skin pigmentation in these populations is due to the preservation of this ancestral state and not due to new variations on a previously lightened population.
-- Human skin color (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Genetics)
I know chimpanzees have pale skin, but what is the evidence that chimps and humans had a common ancestor?
"The most dramatic discovery concerned a gene known as MFSD12. Two mutations that decrease expression of this gene were found in high frequencies in people with the darkest skin. These variants arose about a half-million years ago, suggesting that human ancestors before that time may have had moderately dark skin, rather than the deep black hue created today by these mutations."
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/new-gene-variants-reveal-evolution-human-skin-color
My previous post may have been ill-informed, but may not have been inaccurate according to the above research. I have not seen any evidence that pale-skinned people would become dark over the generations if they were re-settled near the equator, nor that very dark-skinned people would become pale if they moved to high latitudes.
Rather than ignoring what you've already been told and making stuff up, I suggest again that you should consider why pretty much everybody who spends their lives studying this subject agrees that the Theory of Evolution is established way beyond reasonable doubt, and the tiny, tiny minority that don't, are obviously biased by religion.
You are pointing to DNA evidence that "these two genes look similar, so one must have duplicated millions of years ago to form the other", which is a bit of an assumption. Evidence from present day examples shows that mutations can help creatures adapt, but do nothing to make an offspring more complex.
-
Nine examples from the present which demonstrate that "when one looks at the evidence in the real world, stand-out examples of natural selection and mutations show a consistent loss or mere maintenance of genetic information, not the gains that microbes-to-man evolution requires:"
See:
https://creation.com/natural-selection-can-eliminate-never-create
Well that's as disguising, ignorant and/or dishonest as I'd expect from a creationist site. A good part of the article went on about natural selection not being evolution and that natural selection can't create information - no shit.
Nobody thinks natural selection creates new variants, that's what mutation does - but you've read almost half of the article before they bother to tell you that. What follows is handwaving nonsense. It doesn't define 'genetic information' and it doesn't address the argument that if a mutation can go one way it can go the other, so any clam that mutations always reduce information is clearly false.
I'll point you again to CB102 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html) which gives several references and points out that random variation maximises information (novelty - information is measured by 'unexpectedness') and that natural selection is the mechanism that eliminates (yes, that is what it does) non-adaptive variation and fixes adaptive variations. If evolution didn't happen, given random variation and natural selection, we'd have to be asking why not.
I'll also point you again to this: 'Why Evolution Is True' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig).
Rather than ignoring what you've already been told and making stuff up, I suggest again that you should consider why pretty much everybody who spends their lives studying this subject agrees that the Theory of Evolution is established way beyond reasonable doubt, and the tiny, tiny minority that don't, are obviously biased by religion.
You are pointing to DNA evidence that "these two genes look similar, so one must have duplicated millions of years ago to form the other", which is a bit of an assumption. Evidence from present day examples shows that mutations can help creatures adapt, but do nothing to make an offspring more complex.
Your comment doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I suggested you should consider. Your comment is also a gross misrepresentation of the genetic evidence.
Seriously Spud, do you think that the generations of people who have studied this subject, from all sorts of cultures and faiths, have all so totally misunderstood the evidence, and that some tiny band of religious fundamentalists, with a blindingly obvious vested interest, have seen through it? That's before we get to all the other science these people usually disagree with: physics, cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, archaeology, geology, and so on. The pretence that they are only disagreeing with "evolutionists" is a lie in itself.
PS - it's always a laugh (in a sickening sort of way) to search for "old light" on creationist sites, to see them tying themselves in knots trying to explain how we can literally see things that happened millions or billions of years ago, in a 6000 year old universe. How can anybody take these people seriously?
-
You are pointing to DNA evidence that "these two genes look similar, so one must have duplicated millions of years ago to form the other", which is a bit of an assumption.
Here's an article on genetic evidence for you, from a publication called Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (September 2010).
Genesis and the genome: genomics evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral hominid population sizes.(pdf) (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Venema.pdf)
It's quite long (13 pages) so here are some interesting snippets...
"Common ancestry also predicts that, beyond human-chimpanzee common ancestry, the common primate ancestor also shares ancestry with other vertebrates in the more distant past. For example, evolutionary theory predicts that humans, like all vertebrates, are descended from egg-laying ancestors. As with all placental mammals, humans do not use egg yolk as a source of nutrition for their embryos. Other vertebrates such as fish and birds do employ egg yolk, as do a small number of extant mammals such as the platypus.
One protein used as a yolk component in egg-laying vertebrates is the product of the vitellogenin gene. Since placental mammals are proposed to be descended from egg-laying ancestors, researchers recently investigated whether humans retained the remnants of the vitellogenin gene sequence in pseudo-gene form. To assist in their search, this group determined the location of the functional vitellogenin gene in the chicken genome, noted the identity of the genes flanking the vitellogenin sequence, and located these genes in the human genome. They found that these genes were present side-by-side and functional in the human genome; then they performed an examination of human sequence between them. As expected, the heavily mutated, pseudogenized sequence of the vitellogenin gene was present in the human genome at this precise location. The human genome thus contains the mutated remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk formation in egg-laying vertebrates at the precise location predicted by shared synteny derived from common ancestry.
While the vitellogenin pseudogene is compelling, it is but one example of thousands that could be given. For example, there are hundreds of genes used for the sense of smell (olfactory receptor genes) in the human genome that have become pseudogenes. Moreover, many of these pseudogenes have identical inactivating mutations shared among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. Furthermore, determining degrees of relatedness solely based on genomes that share identical inactivating mutations in olfactory receptor pseudogenes, independently arranges humans as most closely related to chimpanzees (most errors in common), and less so with gorillas (fewer errors in common), and even less with orangutans (fewer still errors in common). Additionally, no "out of place" pseudogenes were found in this study: pseudogenes with identical inactivating mutations common to humans and gorillas were also present with the identical mutation in chimpanzees; mutations common to humans and orangutans were present in chimpanzees and gorillas.
This pattern is precisely what common ancestry predicts for these species, since an identical mutation present in two species is most readily explained by its presence in the common ancestor of both species. The common ancestor of humans and gorillas is also the common ancestor of chimpanzees, hence inactivating mutations present in humans and gorillas are also predicted to be present in chimpanzees. In short, the existence of shared pseudogenes between primate genomes, their syntenic locations, and their patterns of inactivation and distribution all coherently support the same model of common ancestry based on comparative sequence homology criteria alone."
...
"...what we observe, time and again, is that genetic codes in organisms thought to be close evolutionary relatives based on nongenetic criteria, match at the nucleotide as well as at the amino acid levels. This is precisely what common ancestry predicts, since the hypothesis is that similar organisms once were the same species with identical genomes. From an anticommon ancestry design perspective, this pattern is problematic. It suggests that the designer was unwilling (or worse, unable) to avoid the overwhelming appearance of shared ancestry when implementing design for what, in fact, are separately created organisms."
...
"In summary, homology, redundancy, synteny, and shared pseudogenes are independent lines of genomics-based evidence that converge on a single conclusion: humans are not biologically independent, de novo creations, but share common ancestry with other forms of life. Moreover, attempts to account for genomics evidence from an anticommonancestry ID, common-design viewpoint are enormously strained and severely ad hoc. While each line of evidence is individually problematic from an anticommon-descent, common-design standpoint, their combined, cohesive pattern is devastating."
-
"As expected, the heavily mutated, pseudogenized sequence of the vitellogenin gene was present in the human genome at this precise location. The human genome thus contains the mutated remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk formation in egg-laying vertebrates at the precise location predicted by shared synteny derived from common ancestry."
I'd like to go off at a bit of a tangent here, but it does involve the ancestry of certain life-forms which interest me - the fungi. Long thought to be strange plants, they have more recently been allocated a complete kingdom of their own. More interestingly, they do show certain similarities with huge sections of the animal kingdom. Unlike plants, their cells contain the substance chitin, which is only otherwise found in the exoskeletons of arthropods and certain bivalve molluscs. It may well be that the creator chose to make them like this, but it seems rather more likely that the fungi and the creatures mentioned had a common ancestor somewhere in the incredibly ancient past.
Furthermore, without the evolution of certain types of fungi, life in the Carboniferous period would have ground to a standstill, and life nowadays would have been very very different. The trees of the period had developed a very tough and stable substance known as lignin, and there were no organisms in the early Carboniferous which were able to break this down - with the result that the planet was littered with the relatively unchanged forms of dead trees. And eventually - no doubt over millions of years - certain types of fungi evolved which were able to break down lignin , and allow the basic constituents of the trees to be recycled - and thus life was able to evolve with greater diversity once again.
Or maybe God made the lignin-destroying fungi in an instant? :)
-
Furthermore, without the evolution of certain types of fungi, life in the Carboniferous period would have ground to a standstill, and life nowadays would have been very very different. The trees of the period had developed a very tough and stable substance known as lignin, and there were no organisms in the early Carboniferous which were able to break this down - with the result that the planet was littered with the relatively unchanged forms of dead trees. And eventually - no doubt over millions of years - certain types of fungi evolved which were able to break down lignin , and allow the basic constituents of the trees to be recycled - and thus life was able to evolve with greater diversity once again.
Or maybe God made the lignin-destroying fungi in an instant? :)
Yes, that is why the Carboniferous is a thing. The evolution of lignin in the absence of any fungal capable of digesting it led to runaway tree growth and this situation ran for 60 million years before fungi evolved to be able to break it down, restoring some balance to ecosystems and hence bringing an end of the Carboniferous.
-
Is the persistence of lignin the reason why coal measures were laid down?
-
Is the persistence of lignin the reason why coal measures were laid down?
Yes there is a relationship, most of the world's major coal deposits were laid down during the conditions of the Carboniferous. It might not be the whole story, though, more coal deposits were laid down during the Cenozoic. As often with science, there is more than one theory around the formation of coal.