Basics of Evolution 101

[Diplomat]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It seems to me like evolution, and genetics, would have to be disproved for there to be room for a god to be responsible for creating human beings. </div></div>
Mmm...why do some people still push the either / or argument as if God and evolution are mutually exclusive?

[SmoothOperator]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
most genetic biologists will disagree that new species are formed due to mutations- which is the premise of the video;</div></div>

Actually I'm not so sure about that. Evolution is as accepted a theory in the science community as is gravity. A good starting point for understanding the genetic basis for evolution is Relics of Eden by Daniel Fairbanks. He is a religious dude by the way - I think a Mormon. Pretty good stuff if you like technical details such as why all great apes apart from man have 24 chromosomes while humans have 23. In short he shows how chromosome 2 in humans is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that has an identical sequence at the fusion point to the ends of the two corresponding chromosomes in apes. I would also recommend Why Evolution Is True from Jerry Coyne for a general introduction to evolution. And FWIW I don't think evolution does away with the idea of a God.

[jah_yout]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TreyJ</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
most genetic biologists will disagree that new species are formed due to mutations- which is the premise of the video;</div></div>

Actually I'm not so sure about that. Evolution is as accepted a theory in the science community as is gravity. A good starting point for understanding the genetic basis for evolution is Relics of Eden by Daniel Fairbanks. He is a religious dude by the way - I think a Mormon. Pretty good stuff if you like technical details such as why all great apes apart from man have 24 chromosomes while humans have 23. In short he shows how chromosome 2 in humans is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that has an identical sequence at the fusion point to the ends of the two corresponding chromosomes in apes. I would also recommend Why Evolution Is True from Jerry Coyne for a general introduction to evolution. And FWIW I don't think evolution does away with the idea of a God. </div></div>

the old 'gravity' argument fails time after time...
gravity is keeping me and you on the ground and that is self-evident since we are not floating away...
evolution (too broad a term) is however not self-evident...
one has to remember that widely accepted scientific precepts have been re-thought at leter junctures...even eugenics was eccepted science at one time;
the biological superiority of some races over others was nearly universally accepted---
turns out it was totally misguided...
so-called evolutionists are blinded by the similarity between humans and chimps---they take that as a sure sign of common ancestry;
but the banana has similar make-up to humans as well--- why are they not pinpointing the 'shared ancestry' there?
since their theory is common descent of life, then we are every bit as much related to a snail as we are a chimp...
we share a common ancestry with a snapper fish according to that theory--- and we may eventually become a totally different species -- one that swims or flies-- according to this theory---
just no intermediaries to show this;
if all life on earth is due to mutations (and natural selection which the video does not go into) then surely since this is occuring at differerent times...surely we should see some forms living &amp; breathing right now- in clear intermediate form;

evolution is the flip-side of religion;
in other words, a primitive attempt by humans to explain their development if not their origins...
(that's right 'evolution' is mum on our origins)

[SmoothOperator]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

Well I agree that gravity is intuitive while evolution is not - almost anyone can test the theory of gravity on his own. Evolution however is not the kind of thing that someone can think up in a vacuum without careful observation and study. And to your point about intermediate forms...one would not know an intermediate form is intermediate until after the fact...you would just see it as a living species...but you may want to take a look at the duck billed platypus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

For me the most powerful evidence for evolution is what one sees in the fossil record. We see a multitude of species that at one point in time existed, and we know they had to have existed at some point in time because we have fossils for them, that are no longer in existence. Then think of the millions of species currently in existence now - where do fossils for those species first appear in the fossil record? How do we explain the disappearance of some species that we know had to have existed based on the fossil record and the appearance of others that bear some similarities to species previously in existence though they are not quite the same. One can reach for a supernatural explanation or a naturalistic one. Evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for the origins of species - mutation and natural selection over time. The origin of life itself or the first lifeforms is another science ...abiogenesis which attempts to explain how life could have begun from inanimate manner. And the only alternatives to the first self replicating life form beginning from inanimate matter...is supernatural agency.

[jah_yout]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For me the most powerful evidence for evolution is what one sees in the fossil record. We see a multitude of species that at one point in time existed, and we know they had to have existed at some point in time because we have fossils for them, that are no longer in existence.</div></div>

it's called extinction...no huge mystery there...
in fact there are species which we still have not discovered...
this does not prove common descent..although it's a nice theory

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then think of the millions of species currently in existence now - where do fossils for those species first appear in the fossil record? How do we explain the disappearance of some species that we know had to have existed based on the fossil record and the appearance of others that bear some similarities to species previously in existence though they are not quite the same.</div></div>


a dog and a wolf are similar
a chicken and a turkey are similar...there have always been &amp; will continue to be species which are very similar to each other...
this does not prove that life was a random, mystical miraculous occurence that just happened
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One can reach for a supernatural explanation or a naturalistic one. <span style="font-weight: bold">Evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for the origins of species </span>- mutation and natural selection over time. <span style="font-weight: bold">The origin of life itself or the first lifeforms is another science ...abiogenesis which <span style="text-decoration: underline">attempts</span> to explain how life <span style="text-decoration: underline">could have </span>begun </span>from inanimate manner.</div></div>

&quot;attempts&quot; and &quot;could have&quot; don't sound very certain to me...
the mistake these guys make is thinking they have all the answers when they are merely a speck of dust in the wider perspective of the universe?
does a cell know that it is merely a microscopic being in a far larger being?
or does it spout off about its own importance and primacy...
we are that microscopic cell spouting off about stuff we have no knowledge of...insane arrogance &amp; presumptuousness...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the only alternatives to the first self replicating life form beginning from inanimate matter...is supernatural agency</div></div>

first you must realize that your thought is limited...
you reject one thought so you think the answer must be the seemingly only other alternative...
i say there are more alternatives than you even conceive of...
you can't answer for absolute certain that we are the only planet with life in the vast universe...
so how much do you really know?

[SmoothOperator]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

Science when done right simply follows the evidence where it leads and is not about certainty. It does not offer up eternal and unchanging truths. It investigates and acquires new knowledge, or updates previous knowledge.

Abiogenesis is an emerging field that investigates the possibility of life emerging from non life. Even if successful in creating life from non life we will never really know for sure how life got started on earth since none of us were actually there at the time. Again, life on this planet or elsewhere in the universe either came about through direct supernatural agency or it was a naturalistic process. I can't think of any other possibility. I think science will eventually show a pathway or pathways from non life to life.

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

[johnnycakes]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

An excellent post that will convert not one person to rational thinking regarding abiogenesis and magic/creationism).

Recent studies have shown that people who cling to erroneous thinking in things like social thinking, religion and politics are NOT convinced by overwhelming factual evidence that contradicts their preconceived and long held erroneous beliefs.

In fact what happens is that when their wrong-headed thinking runs smack into fact, intellectual blinders are raised totally blocking off the facts just seen and they retreat ever further into what they already believe.

This phenomenon is also called cognitive dissonance; the mental distress caused by long held beliefs running head on into facts that prove a person's thinking to be incorrect.
Over the ten years I've been posting at Jamaicans.com I have seen this proven out in many instances.

The best example of this that I can offer was my posting of the Christopher Hitchens debate segment in which he tears up the concept of &quot;vicarious redemption&quot;
(Christ dying to take away OUR sins) and a number of other basic beliefs of Christianity.

I would guess that some people watched the segment but after repeated postings and challenges to deny the truth of what Hitchens had to say in this video, not one of the true believers came forth. This lack of response happening in a population whose home country has more churches per square mile than any other place on Earth.

All this from a devout atheist and anti-theist to say that in a way Matthew 7:6 certainly contains words of wisdom as regards posting at this and many fora on the net

[jah_yout]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even if successful in creating life from non life we will never really know for sure how life got started on earth since none of us were actually there at the time</div></div>

i give you credit in admitting that you do not know...

that is half the battle-- however you err in proclaiming that &quot;we will never really know for sure&quot;...since we do not yet know the limits of the capabilities of the brain nor what will be revealed in time

[johnnycakes]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

Given that the argument is whether life can arise from non-life or that a celestial magician needed to begin life, the video sufficiently proves the former and obviates the latter which was based on Bronze Age ignorance of what is now known .

[jah_yout]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

we are dealing in hypotheticals here...

you call it magic while someone else may say spontaneous appearance...another may say creation;

considering that you do not even know for sure if there is other life out there in the universe...you are not qualified to answer the riddle of life

[johnnycakes]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we are dealing in hypotheticals here...

you call it magic while someone else may say spontaneous appearance...another may say creation;

considering that you do not even know for sure if there is other life out there in the universe...you are not qualified to answer the riddle of life </div></div>


J_Y,

There is nothing hypothetical about the video and the abiogenesis it explains while divine creation is entirely unsubstantiated by fact and is no different from belief in Zeus, the local volcano god or any other of the thousand or so gods that are now considered figments of ignorant imaginations looking for answers.

Creation is based totally on faith and the deliberate ignorance of fact.

The expression &quot;spontaneous appearance&quot; by itself could mean either abiogenesis or a God's creation.

That there is, was and will be other life in the boundless universe is not in question.

The fact that we are here is proof of that. The chemistry of the universe is, well, universal. The same chemicals that are shown in the video becoming life are present
literally everywhere. The chances that the same biogenesis has, is and will happen in millions of other locales in a universe billions of years old is so likely as to not be worth an argument.

I thought the video explained the riddle of life quite well and after that evolution took over and brought us to where we are.

Faith; the belief in the unbelievable and unsubstantiated is on the way out as fact and science lead the way out of primitive belief in celestial magicians.

The reality of chemistry and science in all its encompassing depths and wonder should obviate the need for belief in magic.

As said, science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic.

[jah_yout]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

cakes, that silly video absolutely does NOT solve the riddle of life...

it- like you- is limited to the &quot;our proven scientific fool-proof knowledge&quot; vs. &quot;creationism/ religion&quot;...&quot;natural vs. supernatural&quot;...
it pits all of humanity into two camps---therefore limiting discourse &amp; abandoning deeper reasoning...

this video solves nothing except to ridicule religion which is nothing ground-breaking...a lot about religion is ridiculous...but so are a lot of other philosophies...
i don't take creation myths nor the bible literally, yet i know that humans have not yet solved the riddle of life..only .arrogance makes us think so;
abiogenesis is just a different type of speculation--they have theories and have proven nothing until they can create life from scratch themselves...that would be called proving your theory through experimentation...
if a cell masters the knowledge of its own existence, does that mean it has mastered the knowledge of the existence of the man in which it resides?
let alone the vast universe?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

j_y,

Maybe you should watch the video again.

What it said is that there are two predominant camps on the origin of life.
One is that a supernatural being created life.
The other is abiogenesis.

There is solid scientific evidence of abiogenesis. What is shown in the video is scientifically proven fact. It is not, as you said, speculation. It is not, as you said, a theory. They've done the proving.

Your thought that only until they create what you would call life in a laboratory would what they have found then be valid is really quite preposterous given that it took billions of years for abiogenesis coupled with evolution to produce viable life or anything that we would call life.
The fact that they have clearly demonstrated how abiogenesis works has led you to the necessity of moving the goal posts in order to avoid losing the argument for the necessity or possibility of supernatural reasons for life.


Rather than calling the video &quot;silly&quot; why don't you point out what is silly or in error since you evidently know more than the scientists involved.?


&quot;If a cell masters the knowledge of its own existence, does that mean it has mastered the knowledge of the existence of the man in which it resides?
let alone the vast universe?



If you have some sort of evidence that any cell by itself can be conscious of its existence, I'd like to see that evidence.

Otherwise that question and the supposition contained within it is &quot;silly&quot;.


If you can prove the existence of that whimsical celestial magician who has gone by a thousand names, and all of whom have been discarded as frauds over the millennia, I'll take you seriously.

FMI, Can I safely assume by your nom de plume that you are a Rastafarian?

[lorradear]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

@Johhnycakes

please remember... your body, with all the mechanisms and goodies it contains (brain, heart, lungs etc.) is not you. You are the &quot;spirit&quot; that animate the parts. You are the things you &quot;say&quot; and &quot;do&quot; not the tongue and the hand. Your spirit powers everything.
Have you ever looked upon a dead body. Can you not see it is just a shell that is empty? Flesh that will soon disintegrate and turn to dust leaving bone behind that will rot.
What exactly is it to us how life was created? Are you unhappy with the particular way it was done or are you happy with it? Can you accept the facts you believe without insulting those who believe differently? I happen to believe a combination of both. That means I believe some of your views but definitely not all. If you condemn others of blind close-mindedness, condemn yourself as well because you are both and to the extreme.

Most importantly, since we have already been &quot;originated&quot; (a process you had nothing to do with btw, so claiming the &quot;Factual&quot; knowledge or belief does not make you more intelligent, or highter on the food chain) and can't do anything more about it, why don't we look forward and try to sort out our present and future. Try to help to make the short time we have good for everybody. BTW there's nothing you can do and there will be no new scientific break through regarding your ending. Facts will mean nothing to you when you are dead. Maybe then you'll finally know for sure who was right.

[rudemonk]

Re: Basics of Evolution 101

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

a dog and a wolf are similar
a chicken and a turkey are similar...there have always been &amp; will continue to be species which are very similar to each other...
this does not prove that life was a random, mystical miraculous occurence that just happened
</div></div>

no. and no one would claim that, except for someone who needs to conflate arguments. what is does prove, is that beyond any shadow of a doubt- there are common lines of descent between species, which is what evolution deals with and that alone- the origin of species. so stop trying to tie it to origins of life. please.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
&quot;attempts&quot; and &quot;could have&quot; don't sound very certain to me...
the mistake these guys make is thinking they have all the answers when they are merely a speck of dust in the wider perspective of the universe?
</div></div>

lol that's just some pseudomystical gobbledeegook. for all anyone knows, the universe has no perspective at all. science never claims to be at the end of knowledge, only that it is figuring things out. and if it is wrong, it corrects itself- a fact that people who are anti science seem to conveniently leave out.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
does a cell know that it is merely a microscopic being in a far larger being?
or does it spout off about its own importance and primacy...
we are that microscopic cell spouting off about stuff we have no knowledge of...insane arrogance &amp; presumptuousness...
</div></div>

but here's the thing- we DO have knowledge and facts. incontrovertible ones, such as common ancestry with apes, gravity, evolution, physics, engineering. there are plenty of alternative ideas, and that is why we need the scientific method, because then we can whittle away at the bad ideas- like flat earths or creationism- with proofs and evidences, and we can build on our prior knowledge, which is why wheels went from wood to mag rims with rubber tires.

you seem to suggest man should be happy and in awe of the wood wheel and forego inquiry and development.