Age of Earth

[jonathan180iq]

I agree with you there. It constantly amazes me that people who have no idea what evolution says, cannot give even a basic representation of what it is but are nevertheless bound and determined they are gonna skule people on how stoopid they are. Humans are members of the primate family, dear, we share 97% and 99% of our DNA with our closest relatives, the chimp and the bonobo it's but one fused piece of data which separates us from the chimp.

This is my favorite evolutionary chart of all time.

 

[jonathan180iq]

But we aren't apes at all lol

Dogs are wolves, aren't they?
You don't have to know anything about genetics to visually see how Wolves and Chihuahua's are related, right?

So tell me how there is no physical relationship between the Great Apes and Humans...

 

[leibowde84]

Dogs are wolves, aren't they?
You don't have to know anything about genetics to visually see how Wolves and Chihuahua's are related, right?

So tell me how there is no physical relationship between the Great Apes and Humans...

Great comment!! How can anyone deny that we have a common ancestor?! It's absurd to me.

 

[Marisa]

Great comment!! How can anyone deny that we have a common ancestor?! It's absurd to me.

Even if you look at it from a religious perspective, why wouldn't a god make all life related in some way? It comes down to the arrogance of thinking that we, as a species, are so special that everything was made for us, despite the fact that in our entire solar system we can only inhabit one planet, 70% of the surface of which we cannot inhabit. Then look at us as a species, the things we do. If we are what capital "g" god sees when he looks in the mirror, that dude needs to set higher goals for himself.

 

[gnostic]

I think the main problem with creationists, is they are erroneously assuming that dogs can give birth to cats, or vice-versa. It is utter nonsense, and clearly showed that they don't understand evolution whatsoever.

No biologists state that this possible, unless we talking at virus- or bacteria-level lifeform. They don't understand common ancestry, the ancestors were different to extant species (intermediate), and speciation.

Or perhaps, they do understand, and use it deliberately to misrepresent the theory for the sake of their religion...which in this case, showed they can't be honest to others, let alone being honest to themselves.

 

[outhouse]

they can't be honest to others, let alone being honest to themselves.

To me.

That's is why theist fanaticism and fundamentalism is so dangerous and can retard society, and is an embarrassment to humanity.

 

[Petra14]

Question: Do common features necessarily have to mean common ancestry? Couldn't they also possibly point to a common designer?
I'm not a scientist. My degrees are in politics, but in the theory of evolution, I wonder things like how life originally came from non-life and where the new genetic information came from that a complex species would need in order to move up from a simple one. Random mutations don't seem like enough to me. How do biologists answer these questions?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Do common features necessarily have to mean common ancestry? Couldn't they also possibly point to a common designer?

You're right in that common phenotypical features do not necessarily indicate common ancestry, but they are great markers for telling scientists where to look for common genetic markers.
When those genetic markers align, then they do necessitate common ancestry. And in the case of humans and other great apes, we know that our genetic material shares a common ancestry with all of the others. That's why I said you don't have to understand much about genetics to at least see the connection.

These same patterns can be traced back among all mammals, implying a common ancestor.

Create a scientific test for a Designer and see if it works out... I will say, however, that even the best minds in that camp have produced nothing but assumptions and poetic arguments. They've got nothing concrete at all.

I'm not a scientist. My degrees are in politics, but in the theory of evolution, I wonder things like how life originally came from non-life and where the new genetic information came from that a complex species would need in order to move up from a simple one. Random mutations don't seem like enough to me. How do biologists answer these questions?

They're still working on life from non-life. But they have been able to produce dozens of the building blocks of life from non-life processes. Even the base parts of DNA and RNA are able to be organically produced by non-intelligent forces. We've found from what little we've been able to gather from our rovers and other orbiting satellites in the Solar System that the building blocks and materials needed for life, and even good old fashioned H20, are available in abundance in our Spacial Neighborhood... If it exists here, there's no reason to assume that it doesn't exist somewhere else among the 800 Octillion star systems projected in the Universe, you know what I'm saying?

So we're close to having those questions answered.

It's not just random mutation - you also have something called Gene Duplication that happens on every level from just a single allele in complex organisms to even entire genomes in simpler things, and in some plants. It's from those duplicated and excess genes that new material is introduced into populations and how those random mutations can happen in more than just the confines of a single gene sequence.

You have duplicated genes in you, for example, that may not be expressing themselves externally but that you can pass on to your offspring and that can mutate anytime between now and your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren. A generation 500 years removed from your life can have mutated genes that first entered the information stream through you - because we all share a common ancestor.

 

[dust1n]

Question: Do common features necessarily have to mean common ancestry? Couldn't they also possibly point to a common designer? I'm not a scientist. My degrees are in politics, but in the theory of evolution, I wonder things like how life originally came from non-life and where the new genetic information came from that a complex species would need in order to move up from a simple one. Random mutations don't seem like enough to me. How do biologists answer these questions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

 

[peanutbutter63]

Monopoly no, but credibility yes. Its not a free for all guessing game of opinions. There are things that we can know and there are people far more qualified to be trusted as being correct.

Present your words or demonstration to the public, and let the public decide whether they like it...or not. Simple...

 

[peanutbutter63]

We're all entitled to our own opinions, but none of us are entitled to our own facts.

As I said before somewhere else, present your words or demonstration to the public, and let the public decide. Everyone is entitled to their own facts, opinions...whatever you wish to call it. Why nonBelievers and Believers are hell-bent on converting everyone to their religion is beyond me...

I'm a Muslim(convert), and consider myself quite devout, but I couldn't care less whether the next person, dog, cat, mosquito...or whatever...believes as I do. All this forcing of personal thoughts on others just seem to be all nonsense!...whether they're Jew, Moslem, Christian, Atheist, couldn't-care-less...wombats, etc

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I said before somewhere else, present your words or demonstration to the public, and let the public decide. Everyone is entitled to their own facts, opinions...whatever you wish to call it. Why nonBelievers and Believers are hell-bent on converting everyone to their religion is beyond me...

I'm a Muslim(convert), and consider myself quite devout, but I couldn't care less whether the next person, dog, cat, mosquito...or whatever...believes as I do. All this forcing of personal thoughts on others just seem to be all nonsense!...whether they're Jew, Moslem, Christian, Atheist, couldn't-care-less...wombats, etc

So, do you think that it doesn't matter if what you believe is true or not? Do you believe it is okay to teach children things that are known to be false? If every available fact indicates one thing and a religious ideology says the opposite, what does that tell you about the reliability of that religious ideology?

 

[peanutbutter63]

So, do you think that it doesn't matter if what you believe is true or not? Do you believe it is okay to teach children things that are known to be false? If every available fact indicates one thing and a religious ideology says the opposite, what does that tell you about the reliability of that religious ideology?

1. It shouldn't matter to you what I or anybody else believe, or not
2. When it comes to religion, let the children decide for themselves on religion when they become adults...instead of being threatened with physical violence as I was by crazy and illiterate adult religious nuts when I was a child myself
3. Science...present your facts, let the public decide for themselves. Children learning science in school is a given however

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Question: Do common features necessarily have to mean common ancestry?

Not necessarily, but when common features are corroborated by fossil records and genetics it all builds up to strong evidence of common ancestry.

Couldn't they also possibly point to a common designer?

Why would it indicate that? If we shared absolutely no common features whatsoever, an intelligent designer would still be a hypothesis consistent with the facts. Evolution is the only observed process that can explain these features - the existence of God is still unknown, so there is no point in positing it as a probable scientific cause. At the very least, there's no reason to assume that any God that might exist wouldn't use evolution as their instrument of design, so it is neither positive nor negative evidence either way.

I'm not a scientist. My degrees are in politics, but in the theory of evolution, I wonder things like how life originally came from non-life and where the new genetic information came from that a complex species would need in order to move up from a simple one.

You need to study more basic evolutionary theory and abiogenesis. The origin of life (abiogenesis) is unrelated to evolution, which is the process of how life develops over time, not how life began.

Random mutations don't seem like enough to me.

You're right. It takes random mutations plus natural selection and a great deal of time. Mutations don't achieve anything on their own - but when certain mutations are selected for and against by environmental attrition, over time and through many generations within living populations, it can lead to dramatic changes in allele frequency and morphology within that population.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. It shouldn't matter to you what I or anybody else believe, or not

So you don't care if your beliefs are true? Do beliefs not inform actions?

2. When it comes to religion, let the children decide for themselves on religion when they become adults...instead of being threatened with physical violence as I was by crazy and illiterate adult religious nuts when I was a child myself

I agree, people should have the right to decide their own religious beliefs and practices. But that has nothing to do with facts or science.

3. Science...present your facts, let the public decide for themselves. Children learning science in school is a given however

I also agree, but do you honestly think that it is responsible to teach children that something that is demonstrably true has an alternative explanation that has absolutely no evidence in support of it whatsoever? Are you in favour of teaching alchemy alongside chemistry, for example, and letting children believe whichever they personally find more convincing? What about history? Should we teach our children about the moon landing conspiracies as well as the moon landing? Or teach them holocaust denial theories in history? At what point is something a fact that should be taught as such and something that we should "let children decide for themselves"?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Question: Do common features necessarily have to mean common ancestry? Couldn't they also possibly point to a common designer?
I'm not a scientist. My degrees are in politics, but in the theory of evolution, I wonder things like how life originally came from non-life and where the new genetic information came from that a complex species would need in order to move up from a simple one. Random mutations don't seem like enough to me. How do biologists answer these questions?

Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Nothing about how it got here, or how it got started. And you also have to consider we are talking about billions of years and countless generations for the diversity we see today to develop. We refer to the Rome of about 2,000 - 3,000 years ago as ancient, but relatively speaking that was only about a half a second ago when compared to total span of life ofabout 3,800,000,000 years.

 

[Marisa]

Everyone is entitled to their own facts

No. Facts exist independent of your opinion of their factualness.

opinions

Yes, and when you hold opinions that defy the facts of the matter in question, you look ridiculous to those of us who grasp, even at a basic level, what the facts say.

whatever you wish to call it.

No. Facts are those things which are not in question because we have evidence attesting to their fact-ness.

Why nonBelievers and Believers are hell-bent on converting everyone to their religion is beyond me...

Ah, the crux of the matter. Basically, what you just said is "I'm not going to learn anything I don't already know, if it kills me!" You're like the group of kindergartners running around the playground with their fingers in their ears singing "lalalalala" loudly while the end-of-recess bell rings.

I'm a Muslim(convert), and consider myself quite devout,

Congratulations . . . were you expecting a party?

but I couldn't care less whether the next person, dog, cat, mosquito...or whatever...believes as I do.

Well that makes 2 of us.

All this forcing of personal thoughts on others just seem to be all nonsense!...whether they're Jew, Moslem, Christian, Atheist, couldn't-care-less...wombats, etc

Wrong. I'll say it again: facts exist independent of your opinion of their factualness.

 

[Marisa]

1. It shouldn't matter to you what I or anybody else believe, or not

Yes it should! Should we be teaching every religions' creation myth in school along side the only one we have evidence for? What about germ theory, should people who believe that diseases are caused by demonic possessions (like they did in the middle ages) be allowed to teach medical students their opinions, despite the great strides the Middle East (muslims) were making while christians were back in Europe bleeding people dry and drilling holes in their heads trying to get the demons out? Have you no idea how ridiculous you sound? Believe what you want to about what comes after this life, but that's your limit, okay? When your beliefs affect my life, ground them in fact.

2. When it comes to religion, let the children decide for themselves on religion when they become adults...instead of being threatened with physical violence as I was by crazy and illiterate adult religious nuts when I was a child myself

That sounds great, we need more atheists. This might be the time to share with you the fact that I was raised by atheists and am an atheist myself. So, the assumption that everyone believes something and will come to it on their own may not be as true as you think. My husband and I are both atheists, and so far our kid laughs at religious dogma. She hasn't heard any yet that make her think "hmmmm . . . . sounds legit". Sure you want to keep this point?

3. Science...present your facts, let the public decide for themselves. Children learning science in school is a given however

Well thank goodness for small favors.

 

[Petra14]

Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Nothing about how it got here, or how it got started. And you also have to consider we are talking about billions of years and countless generations for the diversity we see today to develop. We refer to the Rome of about 2,000 - 3,000 years ago as ancient, but relatively speaking that was only about a half a second ago when compared to total span of life ofabout 3,800,000,000 years.

Not necessarily, but when common features are corroborated by fossil records and genetics it all builds up to strong evidence of common ancestry.

You need to study more basic evolutionary theory and abiogenesis. The origin of life (abiogenesis) is unrelated to evolution, which is the process of how life develops over time, not how life began.
.

Several times, people have said that the biogenesis question is not a part of the theory of evolution, and perhaps it's not, but the question is still there. I keep reading that even the simple cell is so complex, that for all of the amino acids, etc...to have arranged themselves in the beginning is statistically impossible. What is your opinion on how life came from non-life? It seems that even if you have the raw materials for something, it won't work if the parts are not arranged correctly.

-and then what about the non-tangible parts of us like a soul or conscience? Is a human essentially a bunch of cells and chemical reactions, or do we also have souls? I have read that some brain surgeons and neuroscientists have confirmed that there seems to be something else that gives us consciousness. What do you think?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Several times, people have said that the biogenesis question is not a part of the theory of evolution, and perhaps it's not, but the question is still there. I keep reading that even the simple cell is so complex, that for all of the amino acids, etc...to have arranged themselves in the beginning is statistically impossible. What is your opinion on how life came from non-life? It seems that even if you have the raw materials for something, it won't work if the parts are not arranged correctly.

It's a fair question. I don't like to skirt the connection between Abiogenesis and Evolution. Evolutionary Theory applies to all things, not just living organisms.

How does water come from non-water?
How does Gold come from non-gold?
How does Nitrogen come from non-nitrogen?

How does life come from non-life?

I think they're all connected.

How did any of those things come to exist without the proper atomic and chemical alignment?
Once that's answered, where did those atoms come from?
What about their structure?
And where did those things which form the atomic structures come from?
And what of those things?
And so on....

You can play this thought experiment game all day long but eventually you'll come to a point where you can't find answers anymore or you start asking questions about things that are unknowable.
So it's best to stick with what's knowable, and that's quite a lot....

Nucelosynthesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

If you don't look at a glass of water and ask the same questions of it as you do of complex life, then you aren't thinking hard enough.

All of existence is a traceable chain of random atomic, chemical, and biological reactions spread out over billions and billions of years; and played out across an unfathomable amount of space.


Which came first, the creek bed or the creek?

-and then what about the non-tangible parts of us like a soul or conscience? Is a human essentially a bunch of cells and chemical reactions, or do we also have souls? I have read that some brain surgeons and neuroscientists have confirmed that there seems to be something else that gives us consciousness. What do you think?

Our behaviors, intelligence, problem solving skills, emotional reactions to events, self awareness, and contemplation are all things that I think we humans pride ourselves on. They're the very foundation of our concepts of souls and conscience. They are amazing attributes and testaments to the "miracle" of life.

All of those things are also easily observable in other animals, which we think to be below us on the hierarchy of organisms...
So do all of those animals have souls and consciousness as well, or is the concept just a distinctly human invention that we've made up?

I'm not arguing for or against the idea that we are conscious beings. But why do we try and limit souls and consciousness to humanity? Doesn't all life share similar attributes that we would otherwise limiti to the human soul or being or essence, or whatever?

All of our feelings and emotional bonds to thoughts and ideas are, essentially, just a very complex set of chemical reactions...yes.
That's why psychiatrists can prescribe chemical balancing drugs to patients and completely change their behavior and even their worldviews simply by adding a few chemicals to the mix, right?
Chemical reactions in those cells can completely alter someone's "natural" behavior - So if the drug-taking person completely changes their life, behavior, attitude and evetrything else about their lives just by adding a few extra chemicals to the brain, doesn't that punch a pretty big hole in the idea that they had this everlasting eternal soul that was implanted in them by god? Doesn't that post some questions, at least, about the nature of a person's being?