Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[Thermos aquaticus]

How does evolution apply to Adam and Eve? Like, what is the science on this? Inquiring minds want to know!

We can use mutation rates, neutral drift, and population genetics to determine if the human population has ever been winnowed down to 2 people in the past 200,000+ years. When these methods are applied the data is consistent with a continuous population of at least 10,000 people over the last 200,000 years.

"In practice, population size estimates based on SNP variation is simply a matter of sequencing a large number of people from around the globe, cataloging them for various SNPs, and estimating how many ancestors they would need to have the SNP variation we see in the present day. As you might expect, different people groups have characteristic sets of SNP variants within them. This makes sense, of course, because we know that the various groups are more closely related to each other than across groups. Tallying up the number of ancestors using this method consistently returns a total minimum population size of about 10,000 individuals: approximately 8,000 ancestors are needed to explain SNP diversity in sub-Saharan Africa, and about 2,000 ancestors for everyone else. SNP diversity in humans is far too large to result from one ancestral couple at any time in the last 200,000 years – we descend from a population. These values are also in good agreement with older, cruder methods of estimating population size from other types of genetic variation, giving us increased confidence that they are reasonable."
Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics: Signature in the SNPs

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, these gaps are used by creationists and such to prove evolution wrong. But why would anyone expect ancient history to leave a complete trail of unbroken evidence? We should feel lucky to have and evidence at all.

Exactly. And the gaps are evidence for evolution since they fit the pattern predicted by geology and other sciences. The "evidence" that creationists demand generally would disprove evolution. Creationists cannot explain the fossil record or why every fossil found to date fits in the evolutionary paradigm while they can't even begin to come up with one.

 

[tayla]

if you respond to a creationist by asking, "Gaps between what? Why do you think there is a gap there?".

That's just plain mean to ask a creationist something sensible like that...

Yes, you have to have endpoints to have a gap between them.

 

[tayla]

the physical world, the realm of math and logic, information and subjective self-awareness are four equivalently real aspects of the same underlying substrate

I think something like this must be true as well. But it's easy to say that math "controls" physics, but how to explain the mechanism? That's the challenge. I'm trying to avoid being in the abstract when thinking about such topics.

The only place where I can imagine a potential linkage is in the randomness of quantum mechanics; for example, when the election appears physically after wave function collapse, it appears in a purely random location, based only on the probabilities. Perhaps if someone were actually choosing where it would appear? But this seems like an exhausting task for cadres of spiritual creatures to be performing mathematical calculations and carefully orchestrating where to place each electron from instant to instant. Seems it needs to be an automatic process based on its nature, not on detailed calculation. Plus, I doubt the calculations are even possible at all -- like trying to determine when and where in the Himalayas to flap a butterfly's wings in order to create a hurricane in Florida.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think something like this must be true as well. But it's easy to say that math "controls" physics, but how to explain the mechanism? That's the challenge. I'm trying to avoid being in the abstract when thinking about such topics.

You might want to ask how it could be any other way. If you have fundamental particles interacting with each other then you are going to have the same result each time. Math is just how humans describe those consistent interactions. How could it be that a photon acts one way on one side of the room and a different way on the other side of the room?

 

[tayla]

the physical world, the realm of math and logic, information and subjective self-awareness are four equivalently real aspects of the same underlying substrate

I think of these as aspects of the spiritual realm. In my view, I imagine two realms: physical and spiritual. The physical realm contains all that stuff provable by science using the scientific method. The spiritual realm contains everything else; things such as: God, consciousness, reason, mathematics, ideas, emotions, figures of speech, symbols, love, etc. I am of the opinion there is no way to determine anything about the structure and functioning of the spiritual realm -- it is beyond the possibility of knowledge. The only way would be via revealed religion and revealed spiritual paths, but who to believe since they all contradict and collide? And many contradict science, archaeology, history, psychology, and etc as well having fatal internal contradictions.

 

[Audie]

Yes, these gaps are used by creationists and such to prove evolution wrong. But why would anyone expect ancient history to leave a complete trail of unbroken evidence? We should feel lucky to have any evidence at all.

The babe in the manger, and the man who
delivered the sermon on the mount cannot be
the same person coz there is a gap.

 

[Audie]

Thank you. This is the first time I've seen this information collected together so neatly and concisely (in spite of hours of searching). You have alleviated my lingering doubts.

If you suffered through American high school "science"
texts, it is not surprising you've not seen much that was
clear and concise.

 

[tayla]

If you have fundamental particles interacting with each other then you are going to have the same result each time. Math is just how humans describe those consistent interactions.

It seems to me that math is more than merely humans describing events after the fact via observation. It seems the mathematical rules are integrated with the essence of the particles; in some way controlling their activities. We come along after the fact and describe them using the same rules.

If a tree fell in the forest and no one was there to hear it, would it behave mathematically? I think the answer is, yes.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It seems to me that math is more than merely humans describing events after the fact via observation. It seems the mathematical rules are integrated with the essence of the particles; in some way controlling their activities.

That's a bit like saying the cart pushes the horse, at least in my view. If you have a bunch of identical protons interacting with each other then they are going to produce consistent interactions. This will necessarily produce interactions that are mathematically identical. It is the fact that particles are identical and interact in a consistent manner that produces the mathematical consistency. Another way to look at it is the physical characteristics of the universe set the rules that the particles follow, such as the permeability and permittivity of space.

Permittivity - Wikipedia

Vacuum permeability - Wikipedia

 

[tayla]

Another way to look at it is the physical characteristics of the universe set the rules that the particles follow, such as the permeability and permittivity of space.

An interesting observation, that the material world is designed such that particles (for example) behave in ways that are describable by mathematics. And then later, after the fact, humans come along and detect the mathematical nature of the universe. Presumably their mind is aware of the same agency that established the mathematical nature of the universe and so these humans describe it in the same way as the particles follow it.

But it doesn't answer the question of where the mathematical nature of the universe came from in the beginning.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

An interesting observation, that the material world is designed such that particles (for example) behave in ways that are describable by mathematics.

The constants of the universe are essentially arbitrary. There is no mathematical formula that says the permeability or permittivity of space has to be a certain amount. Another example is the gravitational constant. These are fundamental constants that can't be explained by math and do not arise from math. They just are. It is from these constants that we get the physical behaviors we see. Since particles are identical and they are affected by the same constants the only result you could get are consistent results. We use math to describe those consistent results.

But it doesn't answer the question of where the mathematical nature of the universe came from in the beginning.

The real question is where the energy came from and where the constants came from.

 

[james dixon]

Every living thing has one thing in common; they all have DNA

Couldn’t it be possible to look at all the diverse living things, singling out what strands are identical and using the non-identical strands compare them to the unique characteristics of that individual?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Every living thing has one thing in common; they all have DNA

We also share some fundamental parts when it comes to how our genetic systems work and how our metabolism works. For example, we share things like transfer-RNAs and ribosomes. We also share common metabolic pathways.

Couldn’t it be possible to look at all the diverse living things, singling out what strands are identical and using the non-identical strands compare them to the unique characteristics of that individual?

I think almost all biologists would agree that the DNA sequence differences between genomes is responsible for the physical differences between species. The correlation between genotype and phenotype is one of the basic observations within biology.