Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 1:32 AM
336 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 333 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,043 Year: 28,649/21,208 Month: 715/1,847 Week: 90/475 Day: 0/37 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word?
Annafan
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 121 of 135 (341909)
08-21-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by jaywill
08-18-2006 1:22 PM


jaywill writes:

quote:
That's certainly not evolution.

Is this another way of saying that there is no point at which we can identify a living thing as "human"?
Are you saying that there is no point in which we can say that a non human life reproduced a human life?

Both will always be possible, since it is a matter of choice.

The issue here is that you seem to be trapped in the preconception that there are "absolutes". You want to categorize, but fail to understand that categorization only works over very long timeframes.

Let's take the classic example of the electromagnetic spectrum of visible light: viewed from a distance, it's quite easy to point to the colors (violet - blue - green - yellow - red). But zoom closely into the areas between the colors, and tell me where exactly for example green changes into yellow? Basically, your guess is as good as mine... It's arbitrary. And unless one recognizes that and accepts the fuzzy concept, there will always be an argument.

Your "primate giving birth to a human" line illustrates a denial of the fuzzy and gradual transition. Starting from that premise makes it impossible to correctly picture how it works.

jaywill writes:

quote:
And the truths that cannot (or that you don't want to) be arrived at through scientific study, what do you do with those?

I'm not sure if the parenthesis portion implies that I prefer not to believe that all truth can indeed be arrived at through scientific study. Is that the implied meaning of "(or that you don't want to)"?

I'll tell you where I'm coming from...

Looking at your post count, I think it's fair to call you a regular here? In that context, it kinda surprised me how (poorly) you still characterized evolution. The examples you gave repeat the same parody of evolution that normally characterizes people who are eiter pretty ignorant or dishonest. Somehow I think you not only *should*, but also *do* know better than that.

Why is it then, that you hold onto that easily ridiculed portrayal? The only reason I can think of (besides dishonesty, but I certainly don't immediately jump to that conclusion), is that you feel better about it that way. You obviously start from the premise that evolution can and should not be true. So, for yourself, you embrace the picture of a female primate mother with a human baby popping out. An image that is so ridiculous that you can easily discard it without further thought, like any other sane person. You can then easily bash that parody without feeling uncertain, and feel good about it. So much nicer than being confronted with all the unsurmountable evidence that inevitable leads to only one conclusion.

jaywill writes:

Do you envision a society where spirituality or philosophy is no longer needed? Do you envision a society finally discarding the idea of revelation, prayer, communion with God, intuitive senses of right and wrong, or trust in the messages of morally exemplarary people?

I think things like revelation, faith in God, and faith in a god's desire to communicate the otherwise unknowable to people, philosophical speculation are the tools other than scientific study that people use to arrive at truth.

I have no problem with that, but what if others defend another truth/God? How are you guys going to work it out and agree? :) I'm not saying these concepts you name are all 'worthless', but just that it can be dangerous to refer to them as 'Truths' (TM). People who have other ideas about a 'Truth' (TM), tend to be not just considered as having another opinion; they are considered to be wrong. And that's a pretty shaky basis to get along with each other...

jaywill writes:

I think when you sit across the table from a scientist who is in tears at undergoing a painful divorce, it comes home to you that some problems cannot be worked out with a slide rule. And some forms of truth must be attained apart from the tools of science.

I don't associate the concept "truth" with any of this, actually?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jaywill, posted 08-18-2006 1:22 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2006 9:43 AM Annafan has responded
 Message 123 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2006 10:39 AM Annafan has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 122 of 135 (342322)
08-22-2006 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Annafan
08-21-2006 11:41 AM


Both will always be possible, since it is a matter of choice.

This sounds as if the classification systems are ambiguous. What does that do to all the tree diagrams taught us showing the evolutionary relationships between vertebre and non vertebre, mullusks, reptiles, mammals, etc.? If the classification system is because of choice so ambiguous how can you effective teach transmutation from one species to another?

It concerns me a little bit also that some educated people may "choose" to declassify me and my children as human beings. If you want to teach children that to date we really can't pinpoint what is a human, that has some social implications that I think should concern us.

The issue here is that you seem to be trapped in the preconception that there are "absolutes". You want to categorize, but fail to understand that categorization only works over very long timeframes.

With long and longer timeframes eventually at some point you have catagorize still. You can't wipe out catagorization by stretching the timeframe out more and more.

Are you suggesting that to date we still may not be human beings? I have seen many tree diagrams of evolutionary relationships. It seems that you are saying that huge lengths of time really render those diagrams not useful.

And I don't feel "trapped" in a system that I think has some validity. I just question if I need to be trapped into one taken to a further degree then it actually can account for.

Let's take the classic example of the electromagnetic spectrum of visible light: viewed from a distance, it's quite easy to point to the colors (violet - blue - green - yellow - red). But zoom closely into the areas between the colors, and tell me where exactly for example green changes into yellow? Basically, your guess is as good as mine... It's arbitrary. And unless one recognizes that and accepts the fuzzy concept, there will always be an argument.

So if we zoom in close enough on some people walking around we might well see that some humans are not really humans yet? Or have we all crossed the ambiguous line between non-human and human somewhere in the past?

IF we educate our children this way I have some concerns about the possibility of it being challenged that certain groups of people are still evolutionarily sub-human. Didn't some folks propose already some ideas like this around the mid early part of the 20th century? I think they were called Nazis.

I'm concerned about an education of kids which makes the line between humans and nonhumans ambiguous to the point that it is completely up to one's choice to bestow identity on people to be one of them or not.

Do you think that these dangerous byproducts of massive evolutionary ideology should be examined as well in the education of
young people?

Your "primate giving birth to a human" line illustrates a denial of the fuzzy and gradual transition. Starting from that premise makes it impossible to correctly picture how it works.

I think you need to weigh that against the denial of a more concrete definition of what a human is and what such ambiguity does to our social structures. Perhaps, not everyone will say "Well, it doesn't matter because we know we have all crossed the fuzzy line."

Suppose some have scientific reasons to believe that the fuzzy line has not been crossed by some people yet?

I'll have to respond to your additional points in another session.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Annafan, posted 08-21-2006 11:41 AM Annafan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Annafan, posted 08-23-2006 5:40 AM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Annafan, posted 08-23-2006 12:43 PM jaywill has responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 123 of 135 (342348)
08-22-2006 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Annafan
08-21-2006 11:41 AM


Looking at your post count, I think it's fair to call you a regular here? In that context, it kinda surprised me how (poorly) you still characterized evolution. The examples you gave repeat the same parody of evolution that normally characterizes people who are eiter pretty ignorant or dishonest. Somehow I think you not only *should*, but also *do* know better than that.

This is a veiled accusation of dishonesty. You're of course entitled to that opinion of me. But I will tell you what I am impressed with too.

I am impressed with how soon and how often people tell me "You just don't understand evolution." It seems with some people to question evolution is to not understand it. Well, of course I don't claim to know everything about the theory. But I think I understand enough that I don't think you should automatically assume I am lying or am ignorant if I have some reservations about how far we are going to take this theory.

You can probably go on forever telling me that I just don't understand evolution. The more you do that sometimes the more you sound like a Catholic priest of the Middle Ages telling the layman that he cannot be trusted to read the sacred text of Scripture.

Humans were arrived at gradually and progressively from "lower" forms of animals. That is the basic idea. Now you could probably grill me on some amino acid combination and satisfy yourself that I really don't know much about evolution. But I think I grasp enough of the basic outline to assume that at some point a human was the offspring of something less than human, even if the difference is atomically minute or it happened over millions of years.

The middle of the around the equator is warmer because of the more direct sunlight. As you travel from north to the center the degress of temperature change in extrememly minute degrees. But they do change. If we have measurements for such they are agreed upon as adaquate if not precise to an infinitissimal degree.

Evolutionary theory holds that a man is the offspring of a one celled animal over very large amounts of time. Or a man is the offspring of a ape like primate over a long period of time. I question that as proposterious. Am I misrepresenting evolutionary theory in a dishonest way?

You can't always dull the sense of shock at such a proposal by accusing people of intentionally putting forth effort to misunderstand the theory.

Saying that it happened over huge amounts of time might be better. But it is not all that much better. Not everyone believes that over enough length of time practically anything can happen slowly and gradually.

Why is it then, that you hold onto that easily ridiculed portrayal? The only reason I can think of (besides dishonesty, but I certainly don't immediately jump to that conclusion), is that you feel better about it that way.

If you want to talk about feelings, I "feel" that to ask me to believe that the present state of all the living things was arrived at gradually by evolutionary transition, is too much to ask me to believe given a process like natural selection.

I "feel" like you are asking a great deal of me. I feel like you are asking me to excercise faith in something of a miracle. This process as far as I have been able to see is "goaless" and random. When I make this kind of criticism I expect the counter to be "Well, you just don't understand evolution, either as a dishonest motive or otherwise. You just don't understand evolution." Your response was not a surprise to me.


You obviously start from the premise that evolution can and should not be true. So, for yourself, you embrace the picture of a female primate mother with a human baby popping out. An image that is so ridiculous that you can easily discard it without further thought, like any other sane person. You can then easily bash that parody without feeling uncertain, and feel good about it. So much nicer than being confronted with all the unsurmountable evidence that inevitable leads to only one conclusion.

I don't think that the evidence is unsurmountable. And I don't think that separating the non-human mother and the human child with millions of years of "fuzzy" little transitions helps that much. There are such tremendous differences between humans and even the closest other life that it is still asking a lot to believe.

I don't believe all change within living things should be bashed. How far are we going to take this principle is a concern to me. Please don't tell me I don't understand evolution when I assume that the theory suggests that our most distant ancestor is some one celled animal. And that by gradual reproduction over long long periods of time transmutations caused a human being to come out.

Let's say in my ignorance that I suggest that an amoeba is the ancestor of you and I. Maybe technically I misrepresent the lattest research. But I don't think I am far off. Through sexual (or asexual) repoduction over many many fuzzy millennia of gradual transmutation, natural selection did its work to cause these descendents to arrive at their present form as Homo Sapien. Do you still say "You just don't understand evolution?"

For all the people who have been telling me that I just don't understand either purposely or otherwise, I am still waiting for this moment of shock that the idea of macro evolution is not all that hard to accept afterall.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Annafan, posted 08-21-2006 11:41 AM Annafan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by MangyTiger, posted 08-22-2006 3:29 PM jaywill has responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 124 of 135 (342434)
08-22-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jaywill
08-22-2006 10:39 AM


I am impressed with how soon and how often people tell me "You just don't understand evolution." It seems with some people to question evolution is to not understand it. Well, of course I don't claim to know everything about the theory. But I think I understand enough that I don't think you should automatically assume I am lying or am ignorant if I have some reservations about how far we are going to take this theory.

These quotes from your Message 116 very strongly suggest you "just don't understand evolution":

Well, I think flying pigs are pretty ridiculous. But I also think that a ape / monkey or what have you as a "primate" giving birth one day to a human being is also ridiculous. If someone shows me it occur one day that will seriously alter my sense of it being foolish.

Besides in evolutionary theory the flying pig is not that bad. Well, you almost have that in the giraffe who stretch and stretched and stretched its neck until it evolved into the long necked creature that we see today. Maybe the head will gradually dislocate from the neck and the two little knobs on the top will evolve into wings.

Then perhaps the neck (without the giraffe head) will evolve in the future into some kind of snake like furry creature. I'm not sure how evolution will handle the big rump and four legs in back. Maybe that will evolve into the nest with four stands that the furry serpantine giraffe neck hatched from.

If you demonstrated a decent grasp of the basics of evolutionary theory then your reservations might be taken more seriously.


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2006 10:39 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2006 3:04 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
Annafan
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 125 of 135 (342666)
08-23-2006 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jaywill
08-22-2006 9:43 AM


working on it...
Hi Jay,

just a quick post to let you know I'm working on a reply. There seem to be some profound differences between your and my take on evolution. What it says, what it MEANS and what it "should tell us". Together with the language barrier it's quite a task to come up with something comprehensive, structured and worthwhile, but I'm working on it!! (which isn't a guarantee that I will deliver what I promise, in the end lol)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2006 9:43 AM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Annafan
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 126 of 135 (342761)
08-23-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jaywill
08-22-2006 9:43 AM


Hi Jaywill,

First I appologize if I did give you the impression that I thought you were "dishonest" (despite me pointing out explicitly that I wasn't ;) ) Here, (again, I might say), there is a great number of gradations between the extremes . Being

"speaking the truth about something which one understands perfectly and of which one is perfectly informed, even though it has an undesirable impact on one's worldview"

one the one hand, and

"lying on purpose about something which one understands perfectly and of which one is perfectly informed"

on the other hand.

I would certainly (based on what I think to know about you thus far) not situate you in the latter group.

Let's start here:

jaywill writes:

Please don't tell me I don't understand evolution when I assume that the theory suggests that our most distant ancestor is some one celled animal. And that by gradual reproduction over long long periods of time transmutations caused a human being to come out.

Let's say in my ignorance that I suggest that an amoeba is the ancestor of you and I. Maybe technically I misrepresent the lattest research. But I don't think I am far off. Through sexual (or asexual) repoduction over many many fuzzy millennia of gradual transmutation, natural selection did its work to cause these descendents to arrive at their present form as Homo Sapien. Do you still say "You just don't understand evolution?"

I will certainly agree that this is a much better representation already than "a primate giving birth to a human being". So the first question is: why then do you still spontaneously decide to use the inadequate characterization (not to say downright misrepresentation) at times? Strawmen usually show up for a reason.

I should also add though, that even someone who characterizes evolution/common descent like you just did, could still misunderstand the essence. One should also always keep in mind that the mechanism is not thought to be teleological and/or progressive. I.e. "further evolved" is not thought to be synonymous to "higher animal". (I noticed you used the term 'less than human' at some point) And if we rewind time and let things start all over again, we would never get Homo Sapiens again. Maybe not even intelligent beings, or (even more) maybe not even the same biochemical basis.

I mention this because part of some people's "disbelief" is caused by this idea that it would require such staggering innumerable amount of precise coincidences to exactly produce Homo Sapiens, while this is not much different from the "incredible coincidence" someone feels when winning a lottery. It's only an "a posteriori" coincidence or improbability (?)

jaywill writes:

If you want to talk about feelings, I "feel" that to ask me to believe that the present state of all the living things was arrived at gradually by evolutionary transition, is too much to ask me to believe given a process like natural selection.

I "feel" like you are asking a great deal of me. I feel like you are asking me to excercise faith in something of a miracle. This process as far as I have been able to see is "goaless" and random.

But honestly... Surely it's not just completely a matter of "believing"?? There happens to be lots of evidence that makes it entirely possible.

Let us assume for a minute that you have nothing at stake (no biasses, no history). Next you start wondering about the diversity of life (and possibly how it all came about). Still next, you are confronted with the findings in (molecular) genetics, biogeography, geology, morphology... What do you think would be the best coherent, elegant and useful explanation for all this evidence? It doesn't even have to be 100% perfect right from the word go. But in what direction would you look?

If you would not favour somekind of evolutionary scenario, what would it be then, instead? (I'll admit rightaway that I have no idea of your position in detail)

jaywill writes:

I don't think that the evidence is unsurmountable. And I don't think that separating the non-human mother and the human child with millions of years of "fuzzy" little transitions helps that much. There are such tremendous differences between humans and even the closest other life that it is still asking a lot to believe.

Would you characterize something like 2.5% as a 'tremendous difference'? I would also advice to not put the millions to billions of years aside as irrelevant or insignificant. A true understanding of the kind of timeframes involved would greatly help to lessen some of your skepticism.

jaywill writes:

For all the people who have been telling me that I just don't understand either purposely or otherwise, I am still waiting for this moment of shock that the idea of macro evolution is not all that hard to accept afterall.

Nobody will ever be able to let you experience your definition of "macro evolution" with your own eyes and Live!. I suppose you also totally reject any star formation theories and 'Big Bang'-like scenarios on that basis.

Then, about the "fuzzy electromagnetic spectrum" analogy that I used.

First of all, the analogy was targeted (because most useful only) at one issue in particular: the gradual but ultimately significant change of one population(species) over time (for example as a result of changing environment). Resulting in us, in retrospect, making distinction between two (or multiple) "serial species" (prior and later). Thus, think of it as one seperate piece of branch of the evolutionary tree, that has no sub-branches or forks (or disregard them for this particular analogy). In that particular situation, setting the exact seperations between different sequential species is entirely a matter of agreement. How much genetic and morphological change needs to accumulate before we start to talk about a "new species"? Since they don't co-exist in time, you can not for example execute a mating experiment.

Which also means that we're looking at a 'temporal' analogy here. The branch moves horizontally through design space but the vertical axis is time. The different colors and gradations could be thought of as corresponding with different genetic make-ups at different TIMES, and not with for example different coexistent species at one particular moment in time. (although near a fork/sub-branch it could also apply).

The "fuzzyness" we're talking about does in no way compromise taxonomy. Its only implication in that context is perhaps that the exact temporal location of subbranching and forks in evolutionary branches is somewhat blurred. But once the branches have diverted sufficiently, it is both clear that they should be considered seperate AND that they have a common ancestor in their past.

The reason that we don't routinely experience this "fuzzyness" between existent species at a particular moment in time, is that natural selection is most severe between creatures who occupy the same ecological niche in the same area. So if a species has somehow split off only very recently, but nevertheless gets in competition with a very closely related species again (like when a geographical seperation disappears), the least successfully adapted will quickly just be outcompeted and disappear. (or alternatively move to another niche instead, which speeds up the growing differences) So because of this, the branches of the evolutionary tree tend to have a lot of 'air' between them.

jaywill writes:

It concerns me a little bit also that some educated people may "choose" to declassify me and my children as human beings. If you want to teach children that to date we really can't pinpoint what is a human, that has some social implications that I think should concern us.

As pointed out above, I was not considering "fuzzyness" in that context.

However, let us look at your argument here.

First of all, it is an "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief". According to your interpretation, accepting evolution would support racist thinking, so therefore you deny it. However, your feelings towards what the consequences could be, have no influence on it being true or not.

Fortunately, there's no need to look at it this way, for a multitude of reasons:

1) as a social species, we collectively create our own morals. If some Natural Principle seems to dictate a moral that we collectively reject, then we are completely free to disregard whatever it seems to imply. We don't have to deny facts for this. Just stop assigning moral consequences to those facts. After all, the only way they could have moral consequences, is when we ASSIGN them.

2)

jaywill writes:

I'm concerned about an education of kids which makes the line between humans and nonhumans ambiguous to the point that it is completely up to one's choice to bestow identity on people to be one of them or not.

First of all, If the evolutionary paradigm tells anything relevant here (in this hypothetical context), it is that such a line does not exist. And if you think about genetics, consider that there is much more genetic diversity WITHIN racial groups than BETWEEN racial groups. No support for your nightmare scenario there!

3)

jaywill writes:

Suppose some have scientific reasons to believe that the fuzzy line has not been crossed by some people yet?


jaywill writes:

So if we zoom in close enough on some people walking around we might well see that some humans are not really humans yet? Or have we all crossed the ambiguous line between non-human and human somewhere in the past?

A "line" is by definition not fuzzy. Any "line" of this sorts that is drawn is the responsibility of the party that draws it. So are the consequences assigned to being on this or the other side of the defined "line". Let's say there would somehow be scientific agreement about where we put the fine line that needs to be crossed to become "human". Evolutionary thinking would then certainly NOT support the statement that on the one side we have "a 100% human", and on the other side we would have "totally non-humans". It would be like: the huge majority of non-humans is 99% human, a minority of them down to 98% human. And the group of so-called "non-fully-humans" would be roughly half of all creatures that we were trying to classify, lol. So any honest, objective "value" that would be assigned according to this classification, would have almost no impact compared to the existing background of social differences.

regards,

Annafan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2006 9:43 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2006 3:29 PM Annafan has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 127 of 135 (342779)
08-23-2006 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by MangyTiger
08-22-2006 3:29 PM


MangyTiger,

If you demonstrated a decent grasp of the basics of evolutionary theory then your reservations might be taken more seriously.

I understand that natural selection worked on critters to cause them to adopt to be able to survive. The more adopted to the environment the more chance at survival. The "useful" traits caused some populations to survive and reproduce and the less "useful" traits caused the others to be passed over and become exctinct.

Now if you pull me down into an argument about some minute molecular combination or some amino acid catalyst you will quickly see that I don't know as much about Evolution as you do.

But this basic overview I think is a fair representation of the overall concept.

So let me drop the lampoon about the Giraffe neck. And I'll drop the sarcasms too. Now, am I wrong to understand that the characteristics of the Giraffe's neck are the result of evolution's work to enable the beast to reach higher and higher into the air to reach the high growing tasty food for survival?

Did natural selection weed out the shorter necked specimens in favor of the longer necked ones? Is that a concept in Evolutionary theory?

What is it about the overall concept that you say I don't understand?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by MangyTiger, posted 08-22-2006 3:29 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 128 of 135 (342788)
08-23-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Annafan
08-23-2006 12:43 PM


Annafan,

I'll have to respond in short sessions.

I will certainly agree that this is a much better representation already than "a primate giving birth to a human being". So the first question is: why then do you still spontaneously decide to use the inadequate characterization (not to say downright misrepresentation) at times? Strawmen usually show up for a reason.

The ever popular diagram of evolutionary progress, which has probably been seen by millions of students, shows ape like animals walking in a row and finally arriving at something we recognize as a human.

The net effect of it is that humans came from apes, or something that the evolutionists have told the artists to make look like an ape. I don't think that that stretching the process over millions of mutations over millions of years dulls the essential impact of the concept. At some point you have apes and at another point you had humans. They are related by descent and reproduction.

You are trying to dull the implication by expanding the time so that it is hardly noticable. But somehow we still notice what you're getting at. Don't blame me for erecting a strawman.


I should also add though, that even someone who characterizes evolution/common descent like you just did, could still misunderstand the essence. One should also always keep in mind that the mechanism is not thought to be teleological and/or progressive. I.e. "further evolved" is not thought to be synonymous to "higher animal". (I noticed you used the term 'less than human' at some point) And if we rewind time and let things start all over again, we would never get Homo Sapiens again. Maybe not even intelligent beings, or (even more) maybe not even the same biochemical basis.

Of that we have no idea. That is an experiment that we never can do.

But it does seem perculiar to me that humans seem so much to be one of a kind. We seem to occupy a class alone. The dolphins and the chimps are wonderful. But there are still tremendous differences between them and humans.

If the process took place I wonder why there is no ready equal "competitors" so to speak at the most evolved end of the scale.


I mention this because part of some people's "disbelief" is caused by this idea that it would require such staggering innumerable amount of precise coincidences to exactly produce Homo Sapiens, while this is not much different from the "incredible coincidence" someone feels when winning a lottery. It's only an "a posteriori" coincidence or improbability (?)

Somehow Annafan, this doesn't do much for my sense of the "incredible coincidence" of life arising in the first place. I know that a mighty chorus will say "Evolution is not about origins". It use to be. I think they backed off from that. And Darwin did call his book "Origin" of Species.

But aside from that I can't get much from rationals that reason that it is not all that much of a coincidence that energy organized itself and brought bacterias to one day transmutate into human beings. Arguments that its not that big of a deal probabalistically aren't too impressive to me.

Some of these arguments I call Pseudo Buddhist kinds of arguments. That is that there is an illusionary appearance of staggering coicindence. If you just look at it the right way it all seems pretty much what we'd expect. But we have nine or so other planets yelling that it didn't happen there.

We have no way of making a statistical comparison about probability until we find one more world where life is. Having found only one so far, what can dull the sense of great coincidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Annafan, posted 08-23-2006 12:43 PM Annafan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by NosyNed, posted 08-23-2006 5:11 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 130 by ReverendDG, posted 08-23-2006 6:13 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 131 by Parasomnium, posted 08-23-2006 6:19 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8802
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 129 of 135 (342824)
08-23-2006 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by jaywill
08-23-2006 3:29 PM


Six New Clangers, Big Booming Clangers...
bounding all over just one post!

(thanks for Rolf Harris :) )

I'll enjoy watching others point out how you prove that you know so very little about the subject that you think you can comment on.

One tidy little post. Six fundamental errors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2006 3:29 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 130 of 135 (342836)
08-23-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by jaywill
08-23-2006 3:29 PM


The ever popular diagram of evolutionary progress, which has probably been seen by millions of students, shows ape like animals walking in a row and finally arriving at something we recognize as a human.

popular? maybe with people trying to present a distorted version of evolution still, science considers it more like a "tree" or "bush", the row thing is just wrong and old! like 50-100 years at least. if people are still presenting that in textbooks its not scientists

The net effect of it is that humans came from apes, or something that the evolutionists have told the artists to make look like an ape. I don't think that that stretching the process over millions of mutations over millions of years dulls the essential impact of the concept. At some point you have apes and at another point you had humans. They are related by descent and reproduction.

yes humans did come from apes, they STILL come from apes jay, humans ARE apes, so its kind of irrelevent to argue this ad nausum, what scientists have come up with is common ancesters between the current apes and monkeys - which includes the split between humans and other apes

The net effect of it is that humans came from apes, or something that the evolutionists have told the artists to make look like an ape. I don't think that that stretching the process over millions of mutations over millions of years dulls the essential impact of the concept. At some point you have apes and at another point you had humans. They are related by descent and reproduction.

but you keep recycling the same junk arguements that have been refuted a million times!, "in evolution they think an ape gave birth to a human!"
you make that arguement and we tell you, you are wrong but you claim you know what evolution is? come on man that just won't fly.

But it does seem perculiar to me that humans seem so much to be one of a kind. We seem to occupy a class alone. The dolphins and the chimps are wonderful. But there are still tremendous differences between them and humans.

no this is specisism, you think that humans are tremendously different because you are told we are, not that we really are. there are differences,but there are more things that are the same than not, pain ,love,sex,eatting,sleeping,friendship,etc - the only real things that seem to make us different are the things we force ourselves into, denying we are animals for instance, looking at being an animal as being a bad thing - i mean the very word is looked on as being bad and evil.
we look at all the technology science and such as something great, but really have we altered all that much? maybe a bit, less sickness, but the basic stuff other animals do we still do

Somehow Annafan, this doesn't do much for my sense of the "incredible coincidence" of life arising in the first place. I know that a mighty chorus will say "Evolution is not about origins". It use to be. I think they backed off from that. And Darwin did call his book "Origin" of Species.

i love this, evidence that he meant the book to be about the begining of life please?
you are mostly just playing sematics with the words, it says origin of speciecs not origins of life! he's writing about how species came about, not how life did. read the title ORIGIN of SPECIES

But aside from that I can't get much from rationals that reason that it is not all that much of a coincidence that energy organized itself and brought bacterias to one day transmutate into human beings. Arguments that its not that big of a deal probabalistically aren't too impressive to me.

well to most people, the probabilty is rather irrelevent to the ToE, why is the probability of life being 1 in 100, 1 in 1000 or more matter to a theory that doesn't cover it? i think you need to look elsewere for this answer because it doesn't have anything to do with ToE

Some of these arguments I call Pseudo Buddhist kinds of arguments. That is that there is an illusionary appearance of staggering coicindence. If you just look at it the right way it all seems pretty much what we'd expect. But we have nine or so other planets yelling that it didn't happen there.

what arguements? other than being that, abiogenesis isn't really fleshed out, what does this have to do with the ToE

We have no way of making a statistical comparison about probability until we find one more world where life is. Having found only one so far, what can dull the sense of great coincidence?

you need to realize that the probibity of life's existance is irrelevent to evolution, as far as biological evolution anyway, this has to do with chemestry or physics not biology
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2006 3:29 PM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 131 of 135 (342838)
08-23-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by jaywill
08-23-2006 3:29 PM


Clearing up some misunderstandings
Annafan writes:

One should also always keep in mind that the mechanism is not thought to be teleological and/or progressive. I.e. "further evolved" is not thought to be synonymous to "higher animal". (I noticed you used the term 'less than human' at some point)

jaywill writes:

If the process took place I wonder why there is no ready equal "competitors" so to speak at the most evolved end of the scale.

In your reply to Annafan, who pointed out the mistake you made, you repeated that exact same mistake. Allow me to explain it to you.

There is no "most evolved end of the scale". Humans are not "further evolved" than chimpanzees. More generally speaking, not one living creature is "further evolved" than any other living creature. In principle, the theory of evolution says that all creatures living now share one common ancestor. Current evidence suggests that that ancestor lived approximately 3.5 billion years ago. Logically, the conclusion is that all creatures are equally "far" evolved, they all have a "mileage" of 3.5 billion years worth of evolution on their "odometers".

Since evolution has no preset goals, as Annafan pointed out, you cannot say that a microbe has evolved "less far" than a human. They each have an ancestry going back 3.5 billion years. The only difference is that they took different paths. We are used to speaking of ourselves as "modern humans", in contrast to earlier species of the genus Homo, which we call "ancient humans", or something like that. Likewise, you should think of the current chimpanzees as "modern chimpanzees" in contrast to earlier species of the genus Pan, which are then "ancient chimpanzees".

In other words: current chimpanzees are just as "modern" as humans.

Annafan writes:

part of some people's "disbelief" is caused by this idea that it would require such staggering innumerable amount of precise coincidences to exactly produce Homo Sapiens, while this is not much different from the "incredible coincidence" someone feels when winning a lottery. It's only an "a posteriori" coincidence or improbability (?)

jaywill writes:

Somehow Annafan, this doesn't do much for my sense of the "incredible coincidence" of life arising in the first place. I know that a mighty chorus will say "Evolution is not about origins". It use to be. I think they backed off from that. And Darwin did call his book "Origin" of Species.

Indeed, he did. That's because he wanted to explain where the diversity of life, i.e. species came from, not life itself. He did not call it "The Origin of Life", did he?

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Edited by Parasomnium, : Spelling

Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2006 3:29 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 132 of 135 (343386)
08-25-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ikabod
06-09-2006 5:12 AM


Hello Kitty theory
ikabod writes:

with out being aware of options how can you make a informed choice

I have a theory that the universe was created last Saturday by Hello Kitty.

You cannot disprove my theory. I can refute any objection you raise.

And I think it's high time Hello Kitty Theory was taught as science.

It's not a matter of indoctrination, mind you. I just think people should be made aware of options. So they can make informed choices, you see.

Do you support this? Will you write your school board?


Archer
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ikabod, posted 06-09-2006 5:12 AM ikabod has not yet responded

  
achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 135 (547295)
02-17-2010 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 7:01 AM


Genesis ia an evolutionary account
I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of scientific theories (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the red herring of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the
land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.

Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 7:01 AM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

  
kishan
Junior Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 12-12-2014


Message 134 of 135 (745458)
12-23-2014 5:48 AM


Yes it requires.
Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 12-23-2014 9:07 AM kishan has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 135 of 135 (745467)
12-23-2014 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by kishan
12-23-2014 5:48 AM


As you were
I thought about it.

Nah, you're wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by kishan, posted 12-23-2014 5:48 AM kishan has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017