The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

Yes, there are insuperable difficulties there.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but those don't sound like the words of someone who's gone out of his way to understand what evolution is and what the modern theory of evolution says about it.
As you know, the study of how the first self-reproducing cell (or biological unit) came into being is called abiogenesis (sci-Greek for 'birth from non-life'). It's true that at present we have no complete description of how the first such cell/unit could have come into being; but it's also true that steady progress is deepening our understanding of what must have been involved. I find it a fascinating topic.
Not quite. First you have a self-reproducing cell (or perhaps a group of them, arising in the same way from the same environment. Then you have a copy of the parent which isn't a perfect copy ─ evolution ─ and three possible outcomes: the difference is detrimental, and the new cell doesn't prosper; the difference is unimportant, and nothing much changes; or the difference is beneficial, and the descendants of that cell will prosper, perhaps at the expense of the others.
Think about it for a moment. It's an entirely pragmatic system. A cell can obtain nutrition by eating another cell only in a particular set of circumstances. And every other step in evolution requires an existing set of circumstances. No creature can eat vegetation before vegetation exists, for example. Once it exists, the possibilities of all kinds of relationship between cells, critters and vegetation arise. That principle remains central all the way down the line. Human evolution goes from the most basic form of life (protobionts, presently undefined)

to the single cell (Prokaryota) 3.5 bya
to nucleated multicelled (Eukaryota) [though some say Eu- was before or simultaneous with Pro-] 1.7 bya
to bilateral symmetry (Bilateria) ›555 mya
to a stomach with two openings [mouth and anus] (Deuterostomia) ›555 mya
to a notochord [‘spinal chord’] (Chordata) ›555 mya
to a backbone (Vertebrata) ›525 mya
to a movable lower jaw (Gnathostomata) ›385 mya
to four legs (Tetrapoda) ›385 mya
to eggs with water retention suitable for dry land (Amniota) ›340 mya
to eye sockets each with a single opening into the skull (Synapsida) ›324 mya
to mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) ~274 mya
to ‘dog teeth’ (Cynodontia) ~260 mya
to milk glands (Mammalia) ~200 mya
to vivipars and monotremes (Theriiformes) ›160 mya
to modern vivipars (Holotheria)
to proto-placentals and marsupials (Theria)
to placentals and certain extinct non-marsupials (Eutheria) ›160 mya
to placentals (Placentalia) ~110 mya
to all mammals except the Xenarthra [sloth, armadillo, anteater] (Epitheria) ~100 mya
to bats, primates, treeshrews (Archonta) ~100 mya
to tarsiers, monkeys, apes (Haplorrhini) ~63 mya
to New and Old World monkeys and apes (Simiiformes) ~40 mya
to Old World monkeys and gibbons (Catarrhini) ~35 mya
to apes [great apes and gibbons] (Hominoidea) ~29 mya
to hominids / great apes [orangutans, gorillas, chimps, Homo] (Hominidae) ~25 mya
to hominins [gorillas, chimps, Homo, H. floresiensis, H. Denisova] (Homininae) ~4.5 mya
to Homo [H. sapiens, H. Neanderthalis, ] (Homo) ~2.4 mya
to Homo sapiens [Homo sapiens Idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens] (Homo sapiens) 250 kya
to Homo sapiens sapien​

(and I suspect the next step will be Homo sapiens mechanicus, but we'll see.)

Important question: do you have a better theory that fits the facts we know from the evidence of fossils and from DNA? These days it's the DNA evidence that tells us most about the history of species, hence genera, hence families, classes and so on.
Not quite. The study of evolution is a mix of facts, well-founded hypotheses, and other hypotheses. This is because the evidence is so bitty, so scarce, so hard to find. Nonetheless, it's evidence, and the framework into which we fit it is our picture of evolution derived from fact and theory. For instance, we know that one line of genus Homo was the Denisovans, and we have their DNA, and we can find that DNA in living groups of humans (but more interestingly, not in others).

How do you propose we account for them? Who will answer the question for us, were they Homo Denisova or Homo sapiens Denisova? What's your approach to such issues?

(No, I don't know either, but I know who to ask, and I know why I ask them and not any of my local pastors.)

I think I mentioned to you at some point that the scriptures definitely allow for evolution on a species level. Dogs have certainly changed over time, but, according to the scriptures, a canis has always been a canis. Ditto for the Homo genus and all other genus.

Genesis says that plants and humans were all made, "after it's kind (Greek genos)." It further states that each organism has, "seed in in itself" which is just a way of saying that a tree produces another tree, a dog produces another dog, etc. In the few observable cases of cross breeding we know of, the offspring is not able to reproduce itself. I'm not a scientist who stays up to date with the latest, so there may be isolated cases that are not like that. But they must be so few and far between that the time to go from single cell to what we have now would be way way more than even the oldest earth age we now consider reasonable.

You observed that the evidence is, "bitty, so scarce, so hard to find." We then fit it into a model. But it is only a model and there could be other models that would account for the scarce evidence.

I think too much is made of the 6 day creation in the scriptures. I'm not exactly sure about what is meant by 6 days. Of course there is much debate on that subject. But, apart from it being 6 literal days, there is nothing in Genesis that would not allow it to be a model that would fit the same evidence as much as our theory of evolution. Personally, I think that given the ratio of necessary mutations to go from one cell to what we have now vs time (latest guess 5 billion years I think) is mathematically untenable. Science knows the rate of mutations in a cell (I used to, but I forget). Of course most are not beneficial, so they can be discounted. The number of beneficial mutations that would be necessary to go from one cell to today is staggering. In short, I don't think even 5 billion years worth of mutations would lead us to where we are today. Notice I said, "I don't think." The fact is I've not been able to figure it out for sure. I've tried to find actual numbers, but so far I've not had any luck. Do you know of any such study?

According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."Some examples of this idea are fireflies developed from the morning dew, bedbugs and lice developed from the slime of wells and mice along with some higher animals came from moist soil. Aristotle also felt that humans first appeared on Earth in the form of a worm." I wonder if another two thousand years will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Not impossible.

 

[blü 2]

I think I mentioned to you at some point that the scriptures definitely allow for evolution on a species level. Dogs have certainly changed over time, but, according to the scriptures, a canis has always been a canis. Ditto for the Homo genus and all other genus.

The bible knows nothing of electricity, atomic theory, radioactivity, the periodic table, chemistry as such, geology, fossils, dinosaurs, evolution, Neanderthals, Denisovans, the age of the earth, the sun, the stars, the universe, deep space, the circulation of the blood, medicine, psychiatry. It thinks pi is three (at a time when both the Babylonians and the Egyptians knew better).

Instead it says that the earth, and fruiting trees, existed before the stars and sun did; that birds existed before land animals did; that the earth is flat, and immovably fixed, and that the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies go round it; that the sky is a solid dome that you can walk on; that the stars are attached to it and if they come loose they'll fall to earth ─ and so on. Likewise Jesus has no knowledge of germ theory, and denies any benefit to washing your hands before eating (Mark 7:1-23).

Are those your views too?

They're not mine. Scripture records the science of the times and places it was written. Why would anyone expect it to have any knowledge at all about the science of 2020?

Genesis says that plants and humans were all made, "after it's kind (Greek genos)."

By what process were they made? Magic? How does magic actually work? What exactly happened when God said "(Let there be) light!" that caused the EM spectrum to come into being?

You observed that the evidence is, "bitty, so scarce, so hard to find." We then fit it into a model. But it is only a model and there could be other models that would account for the scarce evidence.

The evidence is scarce because the conditions under which a fossil can form are specific and rare. In the huge majority of cases the dead critter decays back to nothing. To be a fossil it needs to die in sediment where it can leave an impression, or decompose in the absence of oxygen, letting the molecules of its bones (and, much more rarely, other parts) be replaced by dissolved minerals (petrification). And then the remains must survive movements of the earth's plates, and volcanism, and geological folding, and erosion, and so on. And then someone has to find them and recognize them as such. So they're rare.

The number of beneficial mutations that would be necessary to go from one cell to today is staggering. In short, I don't think even 5 billion years worth of mutations would lead us to where we are today.

Since we're here, that's not right.

According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."

What about the primitive elements Hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen ... ? The whole range of biochemistry, DNA, cell division. When you see your doctor, does he try to put Aristitotle's four humors ─ blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm ─ into balance? Or does he, unlike Aristotle and Jesus, know about germ theory, cardiology, the immune system, antibiotics, the treatment of viruses, the functions of the organs, and so on?

Seriously, we've learnt a thing or two in the past 24 centuries.

 

[rrobs]

The bible knows nothing of electricity, atomic theory, radioactivity, the periodic table, chemistry as such, geology, fossils, dinosaurs, evolution, Neanderthals, Denisovans, the age of the earth, the sun, the stars, the universe, deep space, the circulation of the blood, medicine, psychiatry. It thinks pi is three (at a time when both the Babylonians and the Egyptians knew better).

Instead it says that the earth, and fruiting trees, existed before the stars and sun did; that birds existed before land animals did; that the earth is flat, and immovably fixed, and that the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies go round it; that the sky is a solid dome that you can walk on; that the stars are attached to it and if they come loose they'll fall to earth ─ and so on. Likewise Jesus has no knowledge of germ theory, and denies any benefit to washing your hands before eating (Mark 7:1-23).

Are those your views too?

They're not mine. Scripture records the science of the times and places it was written. Why would anyone expect it to have any knowledge at all about the science of 2020?

You're not suggesting they didn't have carbon dating and atom smashers back then, are you?

By what process were they made? Magic? How does magic actually work? What exactly happened when God said "(Let there be) light!" that caused the EM spectrum to come into being?
The evidence is scarce because the conditions under which a fossil can form are specific and rare. In the huge majority of cases the dead critter decays back to nothing. To be a fossil it needs to die in sediment where it can leave an impression, or decompose in the absence of oxygen, letting the molecules of its bones (and, much more rarely, other parts) be replaced by dissolved minerals (petrification). And then the remains must survive movements of the earth's plates, and volcanism, and geological folding, and erosion, and so on. And then someone has to find them and recognize them as such. So they're rare.
Since we're here, that's not right.
What about the primitive elements Hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen ... ? The whole range of biochemistry, DNA, cell division. When you see your doctor, does he try to put Aristitotle's four humors ─ blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm ─ into balance? Or does he, unlike Aristotle and Jesus, know about germ theory, cardiology, the immune system, antibiotics, the treatment of viruses, the functions of the organs, and so on?

Seriously, we've learnt a thing or two in the past 24 centuries.

We've learned a thing of two in the last two years, even days. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My main point was what will we know in another 24 centuries. How smart will they think we were? The same as we think of Aristotle? Just musing, not claiming a thing.

 

[cladking]

We've learned a thing of two in the last two years, even days. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My main point was what will we know in another 24 centuries. How smart will they think we were? The same as we think of Aristotle? Just musing, not claiming a thing.

A great deal of modern beliefs will be considered "magical" in nature and perhaps none so magical as the belief in the "laws of nature". They will consider us backward, primitive, and barbaric.

Of course this assumes we make it through the dark ages we are entering and avoid extinction.

 

[blü 2]

You're not suggesting they didn't have carbon dating and atom smashers back then, are you?

Well, I might have delicately hinted at something like that. But only after you said they did.

We've learned a thing of two in the last two years, even days. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My main point was what will we know in another 24 centuries.

Sure, but on that view, no one ever really knows anything, so why go with views from two or three thousand years ago that we can make a pretty good case are not accurate statements about reality.

How smart will they think we were? The same as we think of Aristotle?

Aristotle was plenty smart. Looking back down the history of Western thought, he's plainly one of those giants whose shoulders we stand on. But we might get at least a silver star on the back of our hands.

Although a lot can happen in 24 centuries.

 

[tas8831]

A great deal of modern beliefs will be considered "magical" in nature and perhaps none so magical as the belief in the "laws of nature". They will consider us backward, primitive, and barbaric.

Of course this assumes we make it through the dark ages we are entering and avoid extinction.

I suspect the notion that the pyramids were built using fizzy water will be laughed at, much as it is today.
As will the notion that infants decide to grow parts to their brain, that there was an ancient original language that there is no evidence for and that only 1 person understood and knew of yet could not show that this was the case.

 

[cladking]

As will the notion that infants decide to grow parts to their brain...

I never suggested any infant "decided to grow parts to their brain". The structure was obviously already present and by trying to acquire modern language this structure becomes the translator between the digital wernickes area and the now analog brain. It is exactly this process that occurs in every individual which has created complete knowledge and our new species; Homo Omnisciencis.

It's a damn shame you can't understand any part of any of my arguments so you could comment on what I'm actually saying! You are so fixated on helping the faithful to see the light that you can't see your own beliefs. Unfortunately you've also put so little thought into metaphysics you can't tell a belief from a fact. God helps those who help themselves. Unless you try to know what you know then you might never be able to help those who don't know what you know.

Of course everything I say is just gobbledty gook to you so you don't even need to read this post either. Just pick out a few key words and respond to what you think I must believe.

 

[cladking]

Just to be clear here it was a mutation that tied the wernickes area more closely to higher brain functions which allowed complex language and THIS complex digital language that created the human race (Homo Sapiens). The language became too complex for individuals to use and a new language arose that is analog (modern languages). These many new languages required a translator in each brain which is the brocas area. All of history is apparent in these terms.

Unfortunately a side effect of "thinking" (the usage of modern language and formatting) necessitates the construction of mental models to which we must compare sensory input giving rise to brain function and the widespread belief that we are "intelligent" and that we know everything (Homo Omnisciencis).

This really isn't complicated and I'd welcome your insights into it. of course you won't provide any insights because it's far too far outside of your experiences and models and you can't understand it.

 

[tas8831]

Here are some of the zany, crazy assertions you (@cladking) have made (never with even an attempt at providing evidence of any kind) on this topic:

"Most change occurs as the result of population bottlenecks arising from events that favor specific behavior"

The two primary drivers are what we call "mutation" and "population bottlenecks (resulting in the propagation of a behavior)".

"Every" population bottleneck that causes speciation in nature (not man made) is unique and results from the behavior of individuals.

"There are also localized bottlenecks which introduce (cause) a wider variety of genes. When bottlenecks occur only locally the population changes but then it interbreeds again and these changes are "lost" or at least they become invisible to cursory observation."​

For not one of those claims was evidence provided, just your assertions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suspect the notion that the pyramids were built using fizzy water will be laughed at, much as it is today.
As will the notion that infants decide to grow parts to their brain, that there was an ancient original language that there is no evidence for and that only 1 person understood and knew of yet could not show that this was the case.

They have found archaeological evidence of beer among the artifacts of the artisans that constructed the pyramids. Maybe they floated the stones on some sort of beer. Perhaps a stout or some other variety with a good body. Though that does seem like a waste of good beer.

 

[metis]

They have found archaeological evidence of beer among the artifacts of the artisans that constructed the pyramids. Maybe they floated the stones on some sort of beer. Perhaps a stout or some other variety with a good body. Though that does seem like a waste of good beer.

Who said "beer"???

Oh, you buyen???

 

[Wildswanderer]

This post shows you have absolutely no understanding about evolution. Frog evolving into a dog? Seriously? By the way the concept of genus is man made and not an absolute property of living things. Change in the genetics of an organism takes time and the change is observable. The fact that you do not understand the process does not make it untrue. A frog is a frog is a frog shows your total lack of understanding of biology.

Gooblygook.
Change in an organism does not equal evolution from one kind of creature to another with totally different body functions.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Individuals don't evolve - populations do,

So a mutation doesn't happen in one organism and then get passed on to the next? Populations are made up of organisms, one has to change in order for the next one to change and so on.

 

[metis]

So a mutation doesn't happen in one organism and then get passed on to the next? Populations are made up of organisms, one has to change in order for the next one to change and so on.

Many mutations are carried recessively, thus possibly not becoming the phenotype for years or even longer.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Many mutations are carried recessively, thus possibly not becoming the phenotype for years or even longer.

"Many?" And that doesn't change the point. Saying individuals don't evolve is silly. Or dishonest.

 

[Audie]

"Many?" And that doesn't change the point. Saying individuals don't evolve is silly. Or dishonest.

Not that it is my discussion but what I see
is miscommunication, not silliness or dishonesty- always a better way to look at
things first b4 getting scurrilous.

An individual organism does not change
(evolve), it's stuck with what it is, however
similar or different from its parents.
My DNA is what it was before I was born.

If you are good with that, we can look at
what evolution is rather than what it isn't.

If you like.

 

[Bear Wild]

Gooblygook.
Change in an organism does not equal evolution from one kind of creature to another with totally different body functions.

It is gooblygook to you because you nave no training or understanding in biology at all. It is a shame you have so little knowledge. Don't worry if you listen to those that do on this form you to can become knowledgeable.

 

[Bear Wild]

"Many?" And that doesn't change the point. Saying individuals don't evolve is silly. Or dishonest.

The only thing that is dishonest is your silly statements. An individual maintains its genetic compositions with possible mutations that could be passed on to offspring. The collective genetic changes and recombination is what causes the evolutionary changes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who said "beer"???

Oh, you buyen???

We'll need something with a lot of body if we are going to float extremely large stones on the carbonation. And cause they taste good.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is gooblygook to you because you nave no training or understanding in biology at all. It is a shame you have so little knowledge. Don't worry if you listen to those that do on this form you to can become knowledgeable.

It is the sort of thing that meets my expectations.