Racial ascendance

[Robert.Evans]

Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution does make testable predictions.
Organisms evolve to adapt to an environment, and such adaption can be predicted to some extent.

Strange though that we should expect any life to be more complex than it was before, don't you think. Almost like it had some goal, which it didn't, and yet, it did have a period when it was most constructive and leaves us where we are now as humans.... still sounds contrived to me.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Gen. 2:7 puts them together. Although I should add that land is ארץ. Earth is probably a better translation of אדמה.

I would not say "earth" meaning planet though, only as land.

 

[columbus]

Makes it sound rather contrived don't you think? Think about it.

Of course it's contrived. Like all science, religion, art and all the many things people do that animals do not.
Tom

 

[Robert.Evans]

Of course it's contrived. Like all science, religion, art and all the many things people do that animals do not.
Tom

But I mean, contrived in the sense that such complexity should come from such ridiculous odds in the first place and then occasionally mutating into something better. If it was a story, it would sound made up, science fiction.

 

[Revoltingest]

Strange though that we should expect any life to be more complex than it was before, don't you think. Almost like it had some goal, which it didn't, and yet, it did have a period when it was most constructive and leaves us where we are now as humans.... still sounds contrived to me.

No, I'd expect increasing complexity.
Consider....
New information is generated by mutations.
The fitness function ("survival of the fittest") culls the advantageous ones, selecting against the lousy ones.
Voila...new genetic information!

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, I'd expect increasing complexity.
Consider....
New information is generated by mutations.
The fitness function ("survival of the fittest") culls the advantageous ones, selecting against the lousy ones.
Voila...new genetic information!

But why not just different? why be more complex? Are not the best machines the most simplest; they have the least to go wrong. I don't think anyone would predict beforehand (if that was indeed possible) that such complex systems such as man with all our complexities would possible arrive from some primordial soup.

 

[Revoltingest]

But why not just different? why be more complex? Are not the best machines the most simplest; they have the least to go wrong. I don't think anyone would predict beforehand (if that was indeed possible) that such complex systems such as man with all our complexities would possible arrive from some primordial soup.

Because as the number of genes increases, the number of possible adaptations increases, thereby allowing more reproductive success.
Mankind thrives with a complex brain because problem solving creates our unique environmental niche.
But of course, increasing complexity works for some but not all. Simplicity has its place too, eg, viruses.
In all the varieties there are to be called "life", there are many ways to skin a cat.

Should I have issued a content advisory about the cat thingie?

 

[Jumi]

But why not just different? why be more complex? Are not the best machines the most simplest; they have the least to go wrong. I don't think anyone would predict beforehand (if that was indeed possible) that such complex systems such as man with all our complexities would possible arrive from some primordial soup.

That's why the simple ones are most numerous. Do you know how many bacteria and viruses you are home to?

 

[columbus]

But why not just different? why be more complex? Are not the best machines the most simplest; they have the least to go wrong.

This is why is don't believe in God or intelligent design of any sort.
Due to the vagaries of the evolutionary process life has developed a form of living thing willing and able to spew toxic waste and lob nuclear weapons at each other. We pop out babies long past the point of sustainability. Etc.
We just aren't very well designed and the evidence is all around us.
Tom

 

[Robert.Evans]

Because as the number of genes increases, the number of possible adaptations increases, thereby allowing more reproductive success.
Mankind thrives with a complex brain because problem solving creates our unique environmental niche.
But of course, increasing complexity works for some but not all. Simplicity has its place too, eg, viruses.
In all the varieties there are to be called "life", there are many ways to skin a cat.

Should I have issued a content advisory about the cat thingie?

But the more complex it is, the more unlikely.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's why the simple ones are most numerous. Do you know how many bacteria and viruses you are home to?

I'm guessing more than two

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is why is don't believe in God or intelligent design of any sort.
Due to the vagaries of the evolutionary process life has developed a form of living thing willing and able to spew toxic waste and lob nuclear weapons at each other. We pop out babies long past the point of sustainability. Etc.
We just aren't very well designed and the evidence is all around us.
Tom

Well that is one of the reason I do believe in God, as all things replicate what has happened before, but there is always error. Sounds a little like evolution don't you think. Perhaps your understanding is not right.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the more complex it is, the more unlikely.

I see no basis for this.
Can you elaborate?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I see no basis for this.
Can you elaborate?

If you made something yourself, the more complex it becomes, the more likely it is to fail. Take a space rocket compared with a bycicle.
Now look how complex one part of the human system is, say the immune system, or the eye, the respiratory system, a cell, all complex, all have to work together and keep working together. All through blind chance on matter and all needing some parameters to make it all work, such as natural selection.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you made something yourself, the more complex it becomes, the more likely it is to fail. Take a space rocket compared with a bycicle.

You're not defining "failure" properly.
Even though a bicycle is more reliable at bicycling than a rocket is at rocketing,
a bicycle is less reliable at rocketing than is a rocket.
In other words, a bicycle is successful in its niche of low speed ground transportation,
& a rocket is successful in its niche of transporting satellites & astronauts into space.
Complexity is necessary for rocketry.

Now look how complex one part of the human system is, say the immune system, or the eye, the respiratory system, a cell, all complex, all have to work together and keep working together. All through blind chance on matter and all needing some parameters to make it all work, such as natural selection.

Here's your recurring error....."chance" is not blind.
The fitness function of a stochastic system is what 'selects' the winners.
It is not pure chance.

 

[columbus]

Well that is one of the reason I do believe in God, as all things replicate what has happened before, but there is always error. Sounds a little like evolution don't you think. Perhaps your understanding is not right.

I don't understand why this leads you to a religious worldview. Evolution produced a bunch of clever primates who are genetically predisposed to theft, rape, and murder. We aren't much inclined to care about our fellows much beyond our immediate community, sometimes not even then. And these tendencies muck up our own lives, but we do them anyway. The reason is because these behavior patterns serve to reproduce our genes in the wild.
How does this imply an omnimax benevolent creator? Just the opposite, if you look at it logically. There is no God who cares about what we believe or do or what happens to us.

Much, even most, Abrahamic apologetics are efforts to plaster over or wave away this simple and clear observation.
Tom

 

[Robert.Evans]

You're not defining "failure" properly.
Even though a bicycle is more reliable at bicycling than a rocket is at rocketing,
a bicycle is less reliable at rocketing than is a rocket.
In other words, a bicycle is successful in its niche of low speed ground transportation,
& a rocket is successful in its niche of transporting satellites & astronauts into space.
Complexity is necessary for rocketry.

The point I was making which you seem to have missed is that there are many more systems on a rocket and therefore more likely to fail if just one of those systems or parts is not made correctly, functioning correctly or installed correctly. It is far more plausible that something simple will work. This time I will say a ball. All it has to do is roll.

Here's your recurring error....."chance" is not blind.
The fitness function of a stochastic system is what 'selects' the winners.
It is not pure chance.

It is not my understanding of mutations. They are blind as they have no direction. I am sure of that, unless we are at cross purposes here. There has to be parameters to then shape this 'selection' of variety so that the best are "selected" through the process of NS itself. To say it can bring about such complexity, to me, is mindboggling. I don't doubt the process however, but that the process should exist and work, I find so contrived as to be ridiculous. The only way it seems plausible is to say there is a multiverse with every possible universe in it, and so then ours can exists.

 

[Jumi]

I'm guessing more than two

Bacteria have many times more cells in your body than you do. They are simply thriving.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point I was making which you seem to have missed is that there are many more systems on a rocket and therefore more likely to fail if just one of those systems or parts is not made correctly, functioning correctly or installed correctly. It is far more plausible that something simple will work. This time I will say a ball. All it has to do is roll.

No, I properly groked that meaning.
I explained why you're wrong.

It is not my understanding of mutations. They are blind as they have no direction. I am sure of that, unless we are at cross purposes here.

You're correct about this.

There has to be parameters to then shape this 'selection' of variety so that the best are "selected" through the process of NS itself.

That's where natural selection comes in.
Beneficial mutations are passed on, & increase in frequency.
The deleterious ones fade away.

To say it can bring about such complexity, to me, is mindboggling.

I'm not boggled by it.
But system design was my field, so I'm comfortable with stuff happening this way.

I don't doubt the process however, but that the process should exist and work, I find so contrived as to be ridiculous. The only way it seems plausible is to say there is a multiverse with every possible universe in it, and so then ours can exists.

I'm happy with a single universe.
While there could be more, I don't need them.

 

[columbus]

Wait, as opposed to the people claiming as to how ''advanced'' via evolution, this often cruddy primate actually is? I think that your argument is not promoting evolution.

I'm certainly not promoting evolution as a source of advanced morality.
Just the opposite. Whether we came from God or evolution or a combination of the two, morality is the unnatural habit of trying to live well, as opposed to by instinct. We must learn to be good. We are not made that way.
Tom