Is Evolution True? | Benzun's Perspective

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
First of all, Fermat's Theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles without using computers. It was the four color theorem that was proved using computers.

Then as far as humnan evolution is concerned, some species had to be first with intelligence and apparently it was us. You can see other animals, like baboons, evolving toward the early stages of intelligence. And don't give up on the other primates yet, either.

this sounds like "we" homo sapien sapiens had inteligence first, this is an error. also other apes and even primates in some ways have greater inteligence of sorts than humans. for example there memory span for remmbering squences of flashing lights is on averge better than ours.

 

[Phobos]

Neandertals had bigger brains than H. sapiens (1500 cc vs. 1350 cc) and we took care of them didn't we? Of course, brain mass alone does not corrolate directly to intelligence and it would seem that our Cro-Magnon ancestors had the tool-making and cultural edge on the Neandertals. I too hope with selfAdjoint that human culture has moved beyond such prejudice...but that does not seem to be the case based upon all the modern day racism, sexism, etc. going on.

agnostictheist - Correct that H. sapiens were not the first to have "high intelligence", but the genus Homo (of which there were several species) was the first to develop it to this degree. Of course, other critters are quite smart too, as you suggest.

Bernardo - Oh, I'm sure OGO is still there watching the discussion. He just doesn't tend to get involved in the line-by-line debates we all enjoy so much.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Phobos
Neandertals had bigger brains than H. sapiens (1500 cc vs. 1350 cc) and we took care of them didn't we? Of course, brain mass alone does not corrolate directly to intelligence and it would seem that our Cro-Magnon ancestors had the tool-making and cultural edge on the Neandertals.

But what is the comparison between the sizes of the respective neocortexes? Perhaps I should start a thread on this particular point, since it appears that the size of the neocortex, and not the size of the whole brain, is what is most relevant to intelligence.

 

[Nereid]

Mentat wrote: But what is the comparison between the sizes of the respective neocortexes? Perhaps I should start a thread on this particular point, since it appears that the size of the neocortex, and not the size of the whole brain, is what is most relevant to intelligence.

Are you thinking of elephants, dolphins, whales, ...?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Nereid
Are you thinking of elephants, dolphins, whales, ...?

I meant between Cromagnon man and the Neandertals. Neandertalensis had larger brains, but did they have larder neocortexes?

 

[Nereid]

A question not directly related to 'Is evolution true?':

To what extent is homo sap. the pinnacle of evolution? Not in the sense that evolution has a goal in mind, so to speak, but that incrementally evolution produces better, smarter, 'purer' creatures.

I've seen 'evolution' presented as a tree, with homo sap. on top; I've heard evolution described as producing a 'bush' rather than a 'tree'. What's the current thinking?

What goal does evolution have? Or is this question essentially meaningless?

 

[iansmith]

Originally posted by Mentat
But what is the comparison between the sizes of the respective neocortexes? Perhaps I should start a thread on this particular point, since it appears that the size of the neocortex, and not the size of the whole brain, is what is most relevant to intelligence.

Surface area is also important. Neandertal migth had a bigger brain but could have less surface area. Surface area is important because all your neurones are on top (the gray matter) of you brain not inside (the white matter). The folding is important because it allows for an increase in surface area without a excessive enlargement of the brain.

The prefontal cortex is also important.

Originally posted by Nereid
What goal does evolution have? Or is this question essentially meaningless?

That question is meaningless. Evolution does not have a mind. It goes with the flow.

 

[Loren Booda]

Evolution had a definite origin, but may not have a definite end?

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Nereid
To what extent is homo sap. the pinnacle of evolution? Not in the sense that evolution has a goal in mind, so to speak, but that incrementally evolution produces better, smarter, 'purer' creatures.

I've seen 'evolution' presented as a tree, with homo sap. on top; I've heard evolution described as producing a 'bush' rather than a 'tree'. What's the current thinking?

What goal does evolution have? Or is this question essentially meaningless?

The works of Gould went on and on about this. Check 'em out. Basically...
(1) there is no pinnicle...evolution is just change, not necessarily progress...and certainly not progress toward a pre-set goal as far as we can tell
(2) smarter/better/purer is relative to the ecosystem at a particular point in spacetime (e.g., a dominant species during an ice age may quickly go extinct once the world warms up a bit)
(3) and evolution is better diagrammed as a very twiggy bush (radiating variations in many directions, not all evenly "upwards" like in a tree...and certainly not like a linear ladder or chain)
(4) evolution has no final goal...it is genetic change and adaptation to ever-changing environments

 

[Nereid]

Thank you Phobos.

Bernardo, in what respects (if any) do you find Phobos' answer(s) unsatisfying?

OGO, what experimental or observational data is there which contradicts Phobos' four points?

 

[Mentat]

Nereid,
You reminded me of something that Gould once said, in an interview (though I think he was quoting Mark Twain, or somebody): "To say that humans are the purpose/end-result of evolution is like saying that the purpose of the Eiffel Tower was to put the last swab of paint on the top."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Evolution had a definite origin, but may not have a definite end?

I can't see that there is a definite origin to Evolution, but that can be taken for granted so as not to invoke Cosmological debate...as to a definite end, certainly not. Evolution has probably been slowed down a bit on this planet but it certainly has not stopped. We haven't existed long enough to see significant change (the entirety of Cromagnon existence could be played out 750,000 times over within the time that the Earth has existed altogether...a truly miniscule incriment of time), but it hasn't stopped (as observed even in humans themselves (see AG's (Shane's) article in Physicspost.com on "current human evolution")).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Evolution had a definite origin, but may not have a definite end?

I can't see that there is a definite origin to Evolution, but that can be taken for granted so as not to invoke Cosmological debate...as to a definite end, certainly not. Evolution has probably been slowed down a bit on this planet but it certainly has not stopped. We haven't existed long enough to see significant change (the entirety of Cromagnon existence could be played out 750,000 times over within the time that the Earth has existed altogether...a truly miniscule incriment of time), but it hasn't stopped (as observed even in humans themselves (see AG's (Shane's) article in Physicspost.com on "current human evolution")), and it can't stop (since, even if all species were to go extinct, the process of their extinction would be an evolution of sorts..."evolution" just means "change over time").

Now, I guess you could say that evolution on Earth will have stopped when there is no life left here...but then you still have the possibility of abiogenesis occurring again (however minute), and so this might never be the case.

 

[Bernardo]

Originally posted by Nereid
Bernardo, in what respects (if any) do you find Phobos' answer(s) unsatisfying?

OGO, what experimental or observational data is there which contradicts Phobos' four points?

The difficulties I have with his ideas are the 'belief system' they come from. Gould was an Atheistic Evolutionist - I am a Theistic Evolutionist or in more correct terms - a Progressive Creationist.

I look at the points listed above and don't see them as science - they are a 'statement of beliefs' about a science. I do agree that it’s impossible for evolution to work toward an end. Atheistic thought has it as a random progression – so no evolutionary path is possible just as Gould says - but that is only because evolution is a mindless tool. Like a hammer could not imagine the house it's being used to build. On examination of the house you could prove without a doubt that a hammer was used. Even reproduce its effects on smaller controlled pieces of wood.

I know there are other 'intelligent' animals out there who build nests, tie knots with vine, and communicate in a limited way but let's face it, we were surpassing their level 1.6 million years ago when Homo erectus came on the scene. I find this quite incredible that in 1.6 million years no other animal has even began to narrow the gap.

As far as OGO goes, look at Mentat's signature & that's how I feel.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Bernardo
The difficulties I have with his ideas are the 'belief system' they come from. Gould was an Atheistic Evolutionist - I am a Theistic Evolutionist or in more correct terms - a Progressive Creationist.

Did you happen to read Gould's analogy (about the Eiffel Tower)? Why do you see it as "progressive"? Also, btw, creationism doesn't allow for evolution (progressive or otherwise). I could explain why, but then the thread would probably be locked.

I know there are other 'intelligent' animals out there who build nests, tie knots with vine, and communicate in a limited way but let's face it, we were surpassing their level 1.6 million years ago when Homo erectus came on the scene. I find this quite incredible that in 1.6 million years no other animal has even began to narrow the gap.

Rephrase please.

As far as OGO goes, look at Mentat's signature & that's how I feel.

Good man! I was thinking about this thread when I changed signatures, but I didn't think anyone would notice.

 

[Nereid]

Brenardo: The difficulties I have with his ideas are the 'belief system' they come from. Gould was an Atheistic Evolutionist - I am a Theistic Evolutionist or in more correct terms - a Progressive Creationist.

Could you please expand on this? Surely it doesn't matter where the ideas come from - Phobos, Mentat, Gould, ... - it's what the ideas are.

Brenardo:I look at the points listed above and don't see them as science - they are a 'statement of beliefs' about a science.

This, IMHO, is getting closer to the heart of our debate.

You and I apply the scientific method to the study of stars, and we come up with a pretty fine theory of 'stellar evolution' (yes, that's what it's called). Although there may be some Christians who would challenge this theory (if they hold that the Earth is but ~4,000 years old, they have no choice), I would guess it's generally acceptable.

We apply the same tools to the study of living things, and all kinds of emotional energy starts to fly.

In what sense is Phobos' (Gould's?) list more of a 'statement of beliefs' about a science where an analogous list about stellar evolution (or physical chemistry, or thermodynamics, or ...) is not?

 

[einsteinian77]

Where do they come up with the number 6000 years when telling how old the Earth is. I don't recall the bible giving any age of the earth, though I haven't read the bible in about 9 years.

 

[Bernardo]

Originally posted by Nereid
In what sense is Phobos' (Gould's?) list more of a 'statement of beliefs' about a science where an analogous list about stellar evolution (or physical chemistry, or thermodynamics, or ...) is not?

This was the list.
(1) there is no pinnicle...evolution is just change, not necessarily progress...and certainly not progress toward a pre-set goal as far as we can tell
(2) smarter/better/purer is relative to the ecosystem at a particular point in spacetime (e.g., a dominant species during an ice age may quickly go extinct once the world warms up a bit)
(3) and evolution is better diagrammed as a very twiggy bush (radiating variations in many directions, not all evenly "upwards" like in a tree...and certainly not like a linear ladder or chain)
(4) evolution has no final goal...it is genetic change and adaptation to ever-changing environments

The science of stellar evolution has produced a timeline for us. To the best of our scientific knowledge the universe is X years old. It's been arrived at through study. Two scientists working on this same project can have different beliefs about this fact, one says there is no point to the universe it's just random and ever changing. The other says it has been brought about by God.

Gould's statements aren't scientific fact. They are how he believed things work.

As far as the biblical timeline goes - If you start at Adam and work your way to Christ you can determine the age since Adam - it's approx 6K old. This age of the Earth is a difficult position to defend, but honestly really is a minor point when the true reason for the scriptures is taken into account. As I wrote earlier in this thread the scriptures are written in the way the world looks to the common eye and are concerned not with scientific method but salvation. You also have to take into account the historical time period the various book were written and remember that the ancient near eastern mind did not think like a 21st century biologist. The unfortunate thing for this thread is that the creation account was not given to us to solve this debate. The account does not mention prehistoric life or where the other people came from when Cain was banished from his family. I can only shrug my shoulder and say, "I don't know." Honestly It's not a crisis for me.

Take a look in any library on the texts available on this or any other science. It simply isn't realistic to take any scientific view or discovery and throw out the bible because it isn't directly addressed by chapter and verse. There's just too much to know and honestly God isn't really concerned if we ever solve string theory or whatever. It's how we relate to Him that He cares about.

 

[Loren Booda]

Evolution may be seen as emulating the anentropic (ordered) component of the predominantly entropic (disordered) environment.

 

[Bernardo]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Evolution may be seen as emulating the anentropic (ordered) component of the predominantly entropic (disordered) environment.

WHAT??!??

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Bernardo
It simply isn't realistic to take any scientific view or discovery and throw out the bible because it isn't directly addressed by chapter and verse. There's just too much to know and honestly God isn't really concerned if we ever solve string theory or whatever. It's how we relate to Him that He cares about.

Of course, its simply a matter of relevance. And you seem to know that:

As I wrote earlier in this thread the scriptures are written in the way the world looks to the common eye and are concerned not with scientific method but salvation. You also have to take into account the historical time period the various book were written and remember that the ancient near eastern mind did not think like a 21st century biologist.

Based on this, you must be able to conclude that what the Bible says simply isn't relevant to most scientific discussions. There really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts evolution simply because it doesn't say anything relevant to the issue.

It is very important to separate your science from your religion.

 

[Miyu]

Evolution

Hi all.

I've browsed through the replies to this thread and I have a couple of views.

1) As a new user to this forum, I must say that I'm really nothing compared to people who has "physics" in their blood. Coupled with being a Japanese teenager, please do empathsize if I am not clear with my expressions.

2) I feel that if evolution exists, we can just go out into the streets and kill thousands and thousands of people and claim that you're doing the world a justice. You see, if you believe in evolution, you believe in the survival of the fittest. Which means if you have the potential to kill people, they are weaker than you are and hence Man in general should not let weak blood continue into the next generation, isn't it?

3) On top of that, if evolution exists we could just go and kill ourselves. Because we'll die anyway.You could either believe in evolution or God, and it's really hard to believe in both since they contradict. So if evolution exists what then, is the purpose of life? Why are you here? You're here to age, reproduce, then die. Interesting yah? But just look at ourselves. Our bodies are made up of such complexity and wonder...so are we just here to eat and sleep and reproduce and die? It's not possible. If you continue to ask, "Why" to the purpose of life, you'll never get an answer with evolution. Instead, you'll get an answer with God.

Okay I guess the fundamentals lie in your mindset.That is to say, living so many years on Earth will provide you with your own unique views and HENCE whatever others say with not really have such a big impact on your observations accumulated in the years. But well, I'm just stating what I think, even if it is not so "science", so that there would be another perspective to consider. Afterall, it's important to keep an open mind in science.

Luv, Miyuki.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Miyu, what you (or I) as an individual contribute to evolution is our own genes. The only way to contribute is to beget kids. So if you went out and killed a bunch of people, they would lock you up (in many states of the US they would kill you) and you won't have the ability to reproduce. Evolution 1, Miyu 0. Same if you kill yourself, how are your genes going to get passed on down the line?

For me on the other hand, it might be an option. I'm 70 years old and have produced my two kids. It might be good evolution for me to go out and kill the competitors of my kids, making sure that they couldn;t be blamed for my actions.

 

[Bernardo]

Originally posted by russ_watters
It is very important to separate your science from your religion.

To the extent that belief may blind someone to a legitimate scientific discovery - I totally agree. But it's not just religion. The point I was making concerning Gould is also along these lines. He had ideas as to evolution that could blur a scientific discovery for him. Let's say a discovery was made perhaps showing that intelligence is a 'goal' of evolution. Gould may not accept this based on his 'world view'.

That's all I'm saying. Know what you believe, defend it, but still listen to the voices around you.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Miyu
2) I feel that if evolution exists, we can just go out into the streets and kill thousands and thousands of people and claim that you're doing the world a justice. You see, if you believe in evolution, you believe in the survival of the fittest. Which means if you have the potential to kill people, they are weaker than you are and hence Man in general should not let weak blood continue into the next generation, isn't it?

Part of the product of our evolution is our ability to understand that that wouldn't be a good thing for the species. Our sense of morality has evolved.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
Where do they come up with the number 6000 years when telling how old the Earth is. I don't recall the bible giving any age of the earth, though I haven't read the bible in about 9 years.

Creationists believe that the "days" of the Genesis account of creation refer (each) to one thousand years (though some go even further and say that they are each a 24-hour period, those are getting less and less common AFAIK), since there is a scripture in Numbers that says that a day is as a thousand years in His sight. Of course, they fail to read the context, which makes it rather plain that "a thousand years" is merely analogous to an unimaginably long amount of time, and does not refer to a literal thousand years...but...that's for another discussion on another Forum (since the PFs doesn't allow religious discussion anymore).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Evolution may be seen as emulating the anentropic (ordered) component of the predominantly entropic (disordered) environment.

Many people seem to think so, but I disagree. There is nothing anentropic about evolution, and the more complex the being the greater the ability to consume resources...ergo, life is a very good entropy tool, we do not bring about order.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Bernardo
To the extent that belief may blind someone to a legitimate scientific discovery - I totally agree. But it's not just religion. The point I was making concerning Gould is also along these lines. He had ideas as to evolution that could blur a scientific discovery for him. Let's say a discovery was made perhaps showing that intelligence is a 'goal' of evolution. Gould may not accept this based on his 'world view'.

That's all I'm saying. Know what you believe, defend it, but still listen to the voices around you.

But Gould, being a scientists, probably would accept this new evidence of a Creator; however, until that evidence surfaces, Occam's Razor dictates that his is the better idea.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Creationists believe that the "days" of the Genesis account of creation refer (each) to one thousand years (though some go even further and say that they are each a 24-hour period, those are getting less and less common AFAIK), since there is a scripture in Numbers that says that a day is as a thousand years in His sight. Of course, they fail to read the context, which makes it rather plain that "a thousand years" is merely analogous to an unimaginably long amount of time, and does not refer to a literal thousand years...but...that's for another discussion on another Forum (since the PFs doesn't allow religious discussion anymore).

I thought the 6000 years came from summing the biblicly stated ages of Adam and descendants up to the earliest historically establised events.

This site "documents" the fundamentalist christian age of the world calculation:

http://www.100megspop3.com/jtcarter/ageofearth.html

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Relating to the above, this is one of my favorite passages in literature, from "Inherit the Wind"

Brady: A fine Biblical scholar, Bishop Ussher, has determined for us the exact date and hour of the Creation. It occurred in the year 4004 B.C.
Drummond: Well, uh, that's Bishop Ussher's opinion.
Brady: It is not an opinion. It is a literal fact, which the good Bishop arrived at through careful computation of the ages of the prophets as set down in the Old Testament. In fact, he determined that the Lord began the Creation on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C. at, uh, at 9:00 A.M.
Drummond: That Eastern Standard Time?

Njorl

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Njorl
I thought the 6000 years came from summing the biblicly stated ages of Adam and descendants up to the earliest historically establised events.

This site "documents" the fundamentalist christian age of the world calculation:

http://www.100megspop3.com/jtcarter/ageofearth.html

Njorl

I've done the calculation before myself...it does indeed appear that Adam was born/created in 4026 BCE (see All Scripture is Inspired of God and beneficial, published by Jehovah's Witnesses if you want to see exactly what proofs there are for this), and this would put man at about 6000 years (the site said 6175, so I'll go with that) old. Well, that could easily refer just to Cromagnon man, so there needn't be any dispute there with evolutionary theories, right?

 

[FZ+]

Mentat:

Well, that could easily refer just to Cromagnon man, so there needn't be any dispute there with evolutionary theories, right?

A quick look on google shows that cro magnon fossils have been dated to at least 30,000 years old.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html

Miyu:

I feel that if evolution exists, we can just go out into the streets and kill thousands and thousands of people and claim that you're doing the world a justice. You see, if you believe in evolution, you believe in the survival of the fittest. Which means if you have the potential to kill people, they are weaker than you are and hence Man in general should not let weak blood continue into the next generation, isn't it?

That's like saying that since gravity dictates that everything falls down, we should all jump off tall buildings. This sort of thinking only applies if you add an extreme naturalist philosophy - that anything which happens in nature must inherently be good. Most people don't agree with that.
And this argument also ignores that as far as evolution is concerned, there is in general no such thing as blood that is universally "good" or "bad". In an evolution without goals, ubermensch are a delusion.
Some thinkers also say that the evolutionary benefit of maintaining a stable society overweighs that of such selectionism, with the turmoil it would bring.

On top of that, if evolution exists we could just go and kill ourselves. Because we'll die anyway.You could either believe in evolution or God, and it's really hard to believe in both since they contradict. So if evolution exists what then, is the purpose of life? Why are you here? You're here to age, reproduce, then die. Interesting yah? But just look at ourselves. Our bodies are made up of such complexity and wonder...so are we just here to eat and sleep and reproduce and die? It's not possible. If you continue to ask, "Why" to the purpose of life, you'll never get an answer with evolution. Instead, you'll get an answer with God.

That's a fallacy. If that was true, then all religious people who believe in an afterlife would kill themselves too, since life is just a preparation for a better, eternal one after death.

I don't see how God and evolution contradict. Evolution contradicts with the hardline anally retentive theists, but they'll find a contradiction with anything. If you establish somehow that Christianity is anti-evolution, then I'm sorry about Christianity. There are other religions.

And the fact that atheists don't commit suicide is illuminating - perhaps because they observe that life is all the more precious without an afterlife, and that life is about the journey, not the destination or any particular purpose behind it all.

 

[Nereid]

Bernardo wrote: The science of stellar evolution has produced a timeline for us. To the best of our scientific knowledge the universe is X years old. It's been arrived at through study. Two scientists working on this same project can have different beliefs about this fact, one says there is no point to the universe it's just random and ever changing. The other says it has been brought about by God.

Gould's statements aren't scientific fact. They are how he believed things work.

I'm a little surprised Mentat hasn't weighed in on this.

Small clarifications: a) Stellar evolution is about stars; where the raw material for stars comes from is cosmology. Analogously (but not exactly 1-to-1), evolution is about changes in living things, not the origin of the raw material of life.

b) the age of the universe isn't a 'fact', it's model-dependent.

I feel we should definitely clarify this concept of a 'scientific fact', it could cause quite a bit of talking past each other if we're not careful.

Perhaps it would help to have a list, like Phobos', about stellar evolution? Then you could more clearly point out why that list is less a statement of beliefs than Phobos'.

Bernardo wrote: To the extent that belief may blind someone to a legitimate scientific discovery - I totally agree. But it's not just religion. The point I was making concerning Gould is also along these lines. He had ideas as to evolution that could blur a scientific discovery for him. Let's say a discovery was made perhaps showing that intelligence is a 'goal' of evolution. Gould may not accept this based on his 'world view'.
and Mentat wrote: But Gould, being a scientists, probably would accept this new evidence of a Creator

It's not about Gould. FZ+, Njorl, you, me, ... we're free to think about - and test - Gould's work and accept it or not. If his worldview was blinding him, there are surely plenty of others with penetrating minds who will spot the blindness and bring it to light. Yet, AFAIK, the ever-increasing body of observational and experimental data is entirely consistent with Phobos' list.

 

[thunderfvck]

How does evolution explain metamorphosis?
A catterpillar undergoes metamorphosis at some point in its lifetime. This is a process in which the larva encloses itself in a coccon and begins to dissolve itself, weeks or moths later a butterfly emerges. The butterfly is completely different from its former self. What gets me is that, while in the coccon the larva dissolves all its organs, nerve tissues, etc. in order to recreate itself as a whole new organism. I don't see how evolution can accredit for something like that. THe complexity in the genetic information to bring about such a change in an animal is unimaginable. And it's just so perfectly set up. While this had developped during evolution, supposedly, don't you think that an unconceivable number of mishaps would arrise?
eg.

two ancestral catterpillar insects have sex, mutation occurs (only source for macroevoltion) and produces a new catterpillar with the ability to undergo metamorphosis. BUT while in the coccon, and all the organs and things are dissolving, the genes are mistaken in forgetting to put it all back together to make a butterfly. So the two ancestral catterpillars have a miscarriage, too bad. The possibilities of screwing up are endless. It seems that the genetics involved, going from the catterpillar to the butterfly, are very specific. How could evolution create an organism with DNA that is EXACT, no mistakes, that could correctly follow through with metamorphosis? Wouldn't the animal just die out, because it would have screwed up SO many times in its attempt for metamorphosis?

 

[Bernardo]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
How does evolution explain metamorphosis?

Because it's a tool wielded with amazing control and beauty by a most awesome God. I love your example - it demonstrates in a simple way the incredible complexity of life and the mind boggling occurance of the random situations to bring about a simple butterfly.