Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

You ought to ask this question of a biologist, not an astronomer. However, I will try to answer the question, by presenting some of the evidence for the descent of all life from a single common ancestor, with the warning that I am not an authority and that you must check what I say against proper biology books, articles and websites.

First, as long ago as 1758, Linnaeus classified living things according to their anatomical structure, and found that they fell into a nested hierarchy: several species united to form a genus; several genera united to form a family; families united to form an order, etc. The same nested hierarchy is found when living things are classified genetically. This nested hierarchical structure of classification is a natural consequence of descent from a common ancestor, but it does not arise from other processes, such as artificial manufacture or from the original existence of many distinct ancestors.

Second, in The Ancestor's Tale (pages 346-352), Richard Dawkins describes Hox genes, which (so far as I understand it) control the development of an animal from a fertilised egg. These genes occur in all the phyla of animals (vertebrates, arthropods, molluscs, annelids, brachiopods, flatworms, etc.) except for sponges and ctenophores; they are similar in all these phyla, and are even arranged in the same order along a chromosome in the different phyla. It is difficult to see how these different phyla could have acquired similar sets of genes (arranged, as I say, in the same order) except by inheritance from a common ancestor.

Third, so far as I know, the genetic code for terrestrial life forms is universal; all known living things use the same four nucleobases (adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine) in their DNA. Again, it is difficult to see how this situation could have arisen unless the universal common ancestor used these particular bases in its DNA.

Of course, during Darwin's lifetime and before the discovery of DNA and genes, the evidence for common ancestry depended entirely on the nested hierarchy of the Linnean classification of living things. However, so far as I understand it, the genetic evidence has completely confirmed Darwin's inference that the endless forms of living things have been, and are being, evolved from a few original forms or from only one.

The 10th edition of Linnaeus' "Systema Narturae" is used as the basis for modern classification, with techniques and data analysis changing greatly over the last 250 years. Very large bodies of data have been accumulated in support the taxonomic hypotheses. What is interesting to me is that many classical taxonomies have held up fairly well in light of new data from molecular biological studies. Often these studies confirm the findings of the older methodologies.

 

[metis]

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to suggest metis.
If it is you are trying to say, it is wrong to say scientists believe, then the writers of these articles, are wrong, according to you.

Quite simply, in science we never assume that anything is such that cannot be further objectively scrutinized. OTOH, religion doesn't work that way as it's based on faith, not objectively-derived evidence. However, this is not to say that faith is intrinsically wrong. .

 

[metis]

It makes sense to me that God decides what is true regarding religious beliefs

Could you provide objectively derived evidence for this?

My point is that I can accept your "sense" that you believe that, but is that belief in any way actually objectively testable? If so, what kind of tests can you use to establish that?

I say this as I'm not in any way denigrating faith or the Bible but that faith by its definition is more subjective than objective. If you don't believe it is, then please show me where I'm wrong.

How about this as an example: show us using objective evidence that the Bible is "God's Word" but the Bhagavad Gita is not? What observations or/and experiments can you use to support your decision?

 

[metis]

As regard faith and evidence, and religion and evidence, I understand that this is your opinion, and not factual, but have you ever considered that many members of your "faith" do not agree with you on that, and do you ever think on why that is?

Of course many fellow Catholics may disagree with me on this and probably some other items as the Catholic Church is not the Gestapo.

 

[nPeace]

Quite simply, in science we never assume that anything is such that cannot be further objectively scrutinized. OTOH, religion doesn't work that way as it's based on faith, not objectively-derived evidence. However, this is not to say that faith is intrinsically wrong. .

Can you give me an example of something that is "objectively scrutinized" in relation to what we are currently discussing, and explain how the Bible cannot be objectively scrutinized by religious people. Thanks.

 

[nPeace]

Of course many fellow Catholics may disagree with me on this and probably some other items as the Catholic Church is not the Gestapo.

Do you also agree that what you gave, was your opinion, and not factual? If no, please explain how it isn't.

 

[nPeace]

Could you provide objectively derived evidence for this?

My point is that I can accept your "sense" that you believe that, but is that belief in any way actually objectively testable? If so, what kind of tests can you use to establish that?

I say this as I'm not in any way denigrating faith or the Bible but that faith by its definition is more subjective than objective. If you don't believe it is, then please show me where I'm wrong.

How about this as an example: show us using objective evidence that the Bible is "God's Word" but the Bhagavad Gita is not? What observations or/and experiments can you use to support your decision?

Can you please show how ideas of scientists fall into the category of "objectively testable".
For example, the idea that the genome tells us that humans are descendants of apes... Could you start with that, and explain how that is objective. Thanks.

 

[metis]

Can you give me an example of something that is "objectively scrutinized" in relation to what we are currently discussing, and explain how the Bible cannot be objectively scrutinized by religious people. Thanks.

In science, we have what is called "peer review". Therefore, the standard procedure is that other scientists can study our results/conclusions, test or observes them for themselves, and then draw either similar or dissimilar conclusions. However, even these conclusions can be and generally are reviewed since nothing is "sacred" in science.

Is this how theology works? Since I have taught it for many years, the answer is no. Yes, theologians can compare notes and see if they agree, but there is virtually no way to test or observe again, and forensic evidence is relatively rare, typically limited to what archaeologists can dig up and analyze. I was on a "dig" in n.w. Israel in 1998 gathering evidence of the Roman occupation there, and applying what we found to biblical events is highly limited. This not only is a problem in theology, it's a general problem in secular history as well.

 

[metis]

Do you also agree that what you gave, was your opinion, and not factual? If no, please explain how it isn't.

I'm going back through this item again.

Can you please show how ideas of scientists fall into the category of "objectively testable".
For example, the idea that the genome tells us that humans are descendants of apes... Could you start with that, and explain how that is objective. Thanks.

First of all, it's important to get the question right before even trying to answer it.

Genetically, our closest relatives are the apes, and that is a fact. However, if we descended from apes, it's certainly not current apes since they have had their own evolutionary process.

So, what is the exact connection? That we are not certain of, but what is clear is that the earlier we go back into the human fossil record the more similarities we see. A 6 million year old Chad find has so many ape/human characteristics that anthropologists have had difficulty classifying it as being one or the other. This is what we would expect to see if there's a connection between the that split down the road.

And the genome testing is tell us much the same, namely that there seems to be a likely connection somewhere around the 6 million year mark, with some thinking it may be more closer to 8 million years.

But notice my language above: "not certain", "seems to be", "some thinking", etc. IOW, it's a work in progress, and nothing is being assumed to the point of not being questionable.

Is this how religion works? Certainly not.

 

[nPeace]

In science, we have what is called "peer review". Therefore, the standard procedure is that other scientists can study our results/conclusions, test or observes them for themselves, and then draw either similar or dissimilar conclusions. However, even these conclusions can be and generally are reviewed since nothing is "sacred" in science.

This is called objective? How so? In what way is this objective?

Is this how theology works? Since I have taught it for many years, the answer is no. Yes, theologians can compare notes and see if they agree, but there is virtually no way to test or observe again, and forensic evidence is relatively rare, typically limited to what archaeologists can dig up and analyze. I was on a "dig" in n.w. Israel in 1998 gathering evidence of the Roman occupation there, and applying what we found to biblical events is highly limited. This not only is a problem in theology, it's a general problem in secular history as well.

You say, "theologians can compare notes and see if they agree, but there is virtually no way to test or observe again".
What notes did you compare? Were these notes ideas like, "This is what I think" sort of thing?
If yes, then are you saying that there is no way to test if their opinion is true or not?
I suggest not, and the testing is done in the same way scientists test their ideas.

If no, then please explain

I'm going back through this item again.

First of all, it's important to get the question right before even trying to answer it.

Sure. Please do.

Genetically, our closest relatives are the apes, and that is a fact. However, if we descended from apes, it's certainly not current apes since they have had their own evolutionary process.

So, what is the exact connection? That we are not certain of, but what is clear is that the earlier we go back into the human fossil record the more similarities we see. A 6 million year old Chad find has so many ape/human characteristics that anthropologists have had difficulty classifying it as being one or the other. This is what we would expect to see if there's a connection between the that split down the road.

And the genome testing is tell us much the same, namely that there seems to be a likely connection somewhere around the 6 million year mark, with some thinking it may be more closer to 8 million years.

But notice my language above: "not certain", "seems to be", "some thinking", etc. IOW, it's a work in progress, and nothing is being assumed to the point of not being questionable.

Is this how religion works? Certainly not.

You say, "Genetically, our closest relatives are the apes, and that is a fact".
I need you to explain that please.
To my knowledge, my relatives share ancestors. We are related by blood, that's why they call us blood relatives. You and eight billion+ people are not my relatives. Do you say contrary, then please explain how you and them are.
Then please do the same kind of explaining, where the apes are concerned. Thanks.
Or...
Are you referring to gene relation here, as in closely related in the similar structure of the sequenced DNA?
Please can you explain. Thanks.

 

[metis]

This is called objective? How so? In what way is this objective?


You say, "theologians can compare notes and see if they agree, but there is virtually no way to test or observe again".
What notes did you compare? Were these notes ideas like, "This is what I think" sort of thing?
If yes, then are you saying that there is no way to test if their opinion is true or not?
I suggest not, and the testing is done in the same way scientists test their ideas.

If no, then please explain


Sure. Please do.


You say, "Genetically, our closest relatives are the apes, and that is a fact".
I need you to explain that please.
To my knowledge, my relatives share ancestors. We are related by blood, that's why they call us blood relatives. You and eight billion+ people are not my relatives. Do you say contrary, then please explain how you and them are.
Then please do the same kind of explaining, where the apes are concerned. Thanks.
Or...
Are you referring to gene relation here, as in closely related in the similar structure of the sequenced DNA?
Please can you explain. Thanks.

I'll have to get back with you tomorrow as I'm preparing dinner. If my family can survive my cooking, then they have no fear of the virus.

Take care.

 

[nPeace]

I'll have to get back with you tomorrow as I'm preparing dinner. If my family can survive my cooking, then they have no fear of the virus.

Take care.

I guess that means you won't be eating any then.
See you tomorrow, God's will.

 

[YoursTrue]

In science, we have what is called "peer review". Therefore, the standard procedure is that other scientists can study our results/conclusions, test or observes them for themselves, and then draw either similar or dissimilar conclusions. However, even these conclusions can be and generally are reviewed since nothing is "sacred" in science.

Is this how theology works? Since I have taught it for many years, the answer is no. Yes, theologians can compare notes and see if they agree, but there is virtually no way to test or observe again, and forensic evidence is relatively rare, typically limited to what archaeologists can dig up and analyze. I was on a "dig" in n.w. Israel in 1998 gathering evidence of the Roman occupation there, and applying what we found to biblical events is highly limited. This not only is a problem in theology, it's a general problem in secular history as well.

I have found that many observers believe peer review to be lacking in quality and integrity.
As for your second point regarding forensic evidence, one outstanding piece of evidence is the remains of the temple that was in Jerusalem. How do you feel about that? Is it true that there was a temple in Jerusalem in the 1st century C.E. which the Romans tore down?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'll have to get back with you tomorrow as I'm preparing dinner. If my family can survive my cooking, then they have no fear of the virus.

Take care.

I am curious about your quoting of the prayer about making you an instrument of peace. Please can you explain that about peace.

 

[metis]

I have found that many observers believe peer review to be lacking in quality and integrity.
As for your second point regarding forensic evidence, one outstanding piece of evidence is the remains of the temple that was in Jerusalem. How do you feel about that? Is it true that there was a temple in Jerusalem in the 1st century C.E. which the Romans tore down?

I visited the Western Wall of the Temple in 1991 and 1998, including going under part of the outer wall in '98. So yes, it's true.

To your first point, as scientists we don't claim perfection, and that even includes the peer-review process. But that process is far better than the alternative. We need to see each other's work and judge for ourselves, so that process is not one that seeks conformity but sets up analysis and an exchange of evidence.

 

[metis]

I am curious about your quoting of the prayer about making you an instrument of peace. Please can you explain that about peace.

One of the basic teachings in Christianity and all the other major religions is that of seeking peace, even though there are always going to be some in any religion who will subvert that. When Jesus said "my peace I give you", I do believe he meant it and that we need to do much the same.

And this peace should permeate us to the point that we abhor its violation and welcome its success. One of my favorite songs is "And They Will Know They Are Christians By Their Love".

 

[metis]

First of all, I'm going to apologize in advance because today is a busy day for me, plus dealing with your questions in detail would take too long even on a day that's not so busy for me.

This is called objective? How so? In what way is this objective?

The "scientific method" is based on objectivity, not personal beliefs. Religion simply does not use that methodology since "faith" does not require it..

What notes did you compare?

Evidence from other scientist's work. For example, in "Scientific American", before one gets into the articles, there's an exchange of ideas based on previous articles, with some agreeing and some disagreeing in most cases on any particular article.

I suggest not, and the testing is done in the same way scientists test their ideas.

How is that done? For example, how would one test Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (actually it's the Reed Sea)? Nothing has been found that indicates that this occurred, but I accept it on the basis of allegory, which is not to say that it didn't occur though.

I really do that with almost all of scripture, namely to not so much get into "Did this really happen as written?" but to get into "What is the author trying to tell us?". IOW, what's "the moral of the story"?

You say, "Genetically, our closest relatives are the apes, and that is a fact".
I need you to explain that please.

As I explained before, what the connection may exactly be is still at least somewhat up in the air. However, if we use forensics and common sense, there most assuredly appears to be an ancestral connection in some way for reasons I previously posted.

Are you referring to gene relation here, as in closely related in the similar structure of the sequenced DNA?

That plus what should be now pretty much common sense. We know humans have evolved and still continue to evolve, so common sense should deal with the question that since we clearly have evolved, what's further back? The early ape line is the only one that seems to make sense, which is what both the fossil record and genome testing are seemingly telling us.

But remember this, namely that the ToE in no way negates Divine creation.

 

[YoursTrue]

I visited the Western Wall of the Temple in 1991 and 1998, including going under part of the outer wall in '98. So yes, it's true.

To your first point, as scientists we don't claim perfection, and that even includes the peer-review process. But that process is far better than the alternative. We need to see each other's work and judge for ourselves, so that process is not one that seeks conformity but sets up analysis and an exchange of evidence.

Here's how I see it. Let's start with Darwin. As I understand it, he believed human ancestors originated in Africa because we are so close to looking like gorillas or chimpanzees or whatever. Is that basically correct?
Oh and by the way, there are some things re religion that the remnants of the temple also tell us. I, too, saw it. My parents took me to Israel years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, I'm going to apologize in advance because today is a busy day for me, plus dealing with your questions in detail would take too long even on a day that's not so busy for me.

The "scientific method" is based on objectivity, not personal beliefs. Religion simply does not use that methodology since "faith" does not require it..

Evidence from other scientist's work. For example, in "Scientific American", before one gets into the articles, there's an exchange of ideas based on previous articles, with some agreeing and some disagreeing in most cases on any particular article.

How is that done? For example, how would one test Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (actually it's the Reed Sea)? Nothing has been found that indicates that this occurred, but I accept it on the basis of allegory, which is not to say that it didn't occur though.

I really do that with almost all of scripture, namely to not so much get into "Did this really happen as written?" but to get into "What is the author trying to tell us?". IOW, what's "the moral of the story"?

As I explained before, what the connection may exactly be is still at least somewhat up in the air. However, if we use forensics and common sense, there most assuredly appears to be an ancestral connection in some way for reasons I previously posted.

That plus what should be now pretty much common sense. We know humans have evolved and still continue to evolve, so common sense should deal with the question that since we clearly have evolved, what's further back? The early ape line is the only one that seems to make sense, which is what both the fossil record and genome testing are seemingly telling us.

But remember this, namely that the ToE in no way negates Divine creation.

Quite an interesting post but I'll wait for a while for nPeace to answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

One of the basic teachings in Christianity and all the other major religions is that of seeking peace, even though there are always going to be some in any religion who will subvert that. When Jesus said "my peace I give you", I do believe he meant it and that we need to do much the same.

And this peace should permeate us to the point that we abhor its violation and welcome its success. One of my favorite songs is "And They Will Know They Are Christians By Their Love".

Ok thank you for that explanation. Perhaps more about this later. I appreciate your peaceful way of conversing as well.