Does evolution have a purpose?

[night912]

No .. you're simply avoiding the issue.

Apparently you don't know and/or understand what a scientific theory is, so that would go for the Theory of Evolution as well. But it's okay as long as you admit it to yourself and go read up on it. You don't even need to do that much, just need to understand it enough to the point where you can have a conversation about it without the irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the theory.

Please don't go down the dishonesty road. It's demonstrably dishonest to accuse me of doing the thing that you're doing, avoiding the issue. I already addressed this strawman, but I gladly explain it again.

"You find that people cooperate,

This is a social issue and has nothing to do with the ToE, which ONLY deal with biology.

you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.'

I did not say this nor would I say this because I understand the ToE enough to know that it doesn't work like that. Evolution doesn't occur in an individual organism.

You find that they fight,

This is a social issue and has nothing to do with the ToE, which ONLY deal with biology.

you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's.

I did not say this nor would I say this because I understand the ToE enough to know that it doesn't work like that. Evolution doesn't occur in an individual organism.

In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

Sorry, but just because you do that, it doesn't mean that everyone else does that as well.

What I said above, is the same thing I said in my older post, I just went into more details this time to see if you could understand it.

Your turn. Are you going to address the points that I made above? Or are you just simply going to avoid them and accuse me of doing something that you did, are doing and/or will do? I'll wait for your reply, my predictions may come true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you going to address the points that I made above?

You have made no new points. You have just mechanically repeated "This is a social issue and has nothing to do with the ToE, which ONLY deals with biology"

It does not explain what you mean by brains evolving to be "suitable for their survival."
You keep making assertions about ToE being about biology.
So in what way do you speak of "brains evolving"?
Why have human brains evolved in a different fashion to that of other apes?
Is it a pure fluke, do you think?

Do you say no .. it is about brains being "suitable for survival".
Why can't you explain it to me, what you actually mean by this?

 

[ratiocinator]

What do we know, exactly?
Can we be sure that LUCA is actual truth .. or is it an unprovable theory?

The way you talk about science betrays the fact that you don't understand it. Theories are never proved. They can be disproved (falsified) by contradictory evidence but the reason we have confidence in theories is based on the amount of supporting evidence and the lack of any falsifying evidence. In this case the idea that all life on earth had a common ancestor is supported by plentiful evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, that's right.
What do we know, exactly?[
Can we be sure that LUCA is actual truth

Yes. It's a genetic fact.

The explanation that underpins this fact is the same model that underpins any DNA testing to determine kinship / ancestry / bloodlines in general.

Reproducing life forms a family tree. So it creates hierarchical distribution of genetic markers / sequences.
If some individual has a mutation giving him trackable marker X in his DNA, then for others to have the same marker, they would have to be his offspring.

He'll pass it on to his kids. They to their kids. And so on.
Meaning if 1000 years later we find the same marker in 2 individuals, then we know that they share an ancestor in their past from whom they ultimately inherited that marker.

Humans shares many markers/sequences with chimps that they don't share with gorilla's. That's how we know that the common ancestor with chimps is younger then the one with gorilla's. It's also how we know that both common ancestors existed. Regardless of who they were, when they lived or where they lived.

We share more such markers/sequences with gorilla's then with housecats. So the common ancestor with gorilla's is younger then the one with housecats.

So the genetics will put it in that order from closest to furthest related "cousin species": chimps, gorilla's, cats
Looking at anatomy, that absolutely confirms this also. Anatomically we are closer to chimps then to gorilla's. Closer to gorilla's then to cats. Closer to cats then to alligators. Closer to alligators then to fish. Etc.

It all lines up and adds up.
By any and all accounts, the fact that life shares ancestry is nothing short of a biological fact.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes. It's a genetic fact..

Funny isn't it?
You seem to consider something that we hypothesise that existed 4.5 billion years ago as fact.
Oh well. Whatever floats your boat

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Y
Why have human brains evolved in a different fashion to that of other apes?
Is it a pure fluke, do you think?

You might be surprised to learn that our brain actually isn't that much different.

Over the years, people have tried hard to try and distinguish humans from the animal kingdom, as if humans are "special" in a special kind of way.

Yet many things that humans claimed to be "human only" has been shown to be not as unique as such people would like to think / believe.

In fact, we share the vast majority of our cognitive faculties with the other great apes - many of which would likely surprise you.

The truth is that we are far more alike then we are different.
Another thing is that, mind-/cognition-wise, there isn't that big of a difference between humans building the Hubble space telescope and chimps manipulating a stick to fashion it into an ant-catching tool.

In fact, in almost every type of irrational decision humans tend to make, there is an evolutionary reason for it. An evolutionary cause that we also see in other species.

Do you say no .. it is about brains being "suitable for survival".
Why can't you explain it to me, what you actually mean by this?

The enlarging of the brain didn't happen overnight, nor is there a single reason for it.
It's a part of the gradual process that took some 7 million years starting with the common ancestor with chimps till today.

There were many many many milestones along the way. Likely there were also many branches that died off. Neanderthals being the more recent and best known example.

A common hypothesis is that the switch to cooking food was one of the major events in shifting the species towards more cognition focuses and social planning. And planning in general.


All this things together put us on a path of further exploring the faculties we share with chimps, and expand them just a bit.

Because again, the difference between a satellite and an ant-catching stick, really isn't all that big.

The main difference is just precision.
The knowledge that goes into it... the difference there mainly is that humans accumulated their knowledge thanks to writing and humans being better at long term knowledge retention. Whereas chimps blow us humans out of the water when it comes to short term memory. And like, really really badly also.... We don't even reach their ankles.

In any case, when it comes to the underlying cognitive faculties necessary to create both the hubble as well as the ant-catching stick: it's the same faculties. And we both have them. We humans just, at best, use them a little bit more effectively.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Funny isn't it?
You seem to consider something that we hypothesise that existed 4.5 billion years ago as fact.
Oh well. Whatever floats your boat

Why did you cut out the rest of my post?

You know.... the part where I actually explain why it is a fact and how we know it is a fact.

So the only "funny" thing here, is how you didn't even attempt to respond to it. Instead, you just cut it out, pretended it's not there, and then handwaved away some strawman.


Doesn't Islam include something similar to "you shall not bear false witness?"



Whenever you are ready to respond with a speck of intellectual honesty to the part where it is explained how and why it is a genetic fact that species share ancestry, I'm here for you.

Until then, I'm not going to bother anymore as this is just a grotesk waste of my time.

 

[night912]

You have made no new points. You have just mechanically repeated "This is a social issue and has nothing to do with the ToE, which ONLY deals with biology"

It does not explain what you mean by brains evolving to be "suitable for their survival."
You keep making assertions about ToE being about biology.
So in what way do you speak of "brains evolving"?
Why have human brains evolved in a different fashion to that of other apes? Some who understands the ToE would already know the answer to this.
Is it a pure fluke, do you think?
Some who understands the ToE would already know the answer to this.

Do you say no .. it is about brains being "suitable for survival".
Why can't you explain it to me, what you actually mean by this?

Avoiding my points. Got it.
Don't understand the Theory of Evolution. Got it.

Understanding of the ToE is require in order for you to understand the explanation. And you avoiding to give an explanation of what you understand about the theory along with your other responses indicates that you don't understand the theory. So unless if you're willing to have an honest discussion and provide your explanation like I asked, this discussion won't be going anywhere. Having an understanding of the theory will avoid continuously asking "why" questions.

 

[night912]

Funny isn't it?
You seem to consider something that we hypothesise that existed 4.5 billion years ago as fact.
Oh well. Whatever floats your boat

We can start testing you for genetic information 4.5 seconds after your mom gave birth to you and compare it with that of a gorilla and it'll show that you two had a common ancestor.

And you're wrong. Perhaps YOU hypothesized that a lifeform existed 4.5 billion years ago, but the FACT is, the majority, if not all, of the scientific community disagree with you. There's no scientific hypothesis that suggest that life on Earth began as soon as the Earth began. You just demonstrated your ignorance in this subject. Being off by at least a billion years is nowhere near the ballpark of the hypothesized year. Better luck next time.

So what makes you think that you're qualify to have a simple conversation about a particular subject if you're ignorant of the basic facts regarding that subject?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why did you cut out the rest of my post?

You know.... the part where I actually explain why it is a fact and how we know it is a fact..

I read it, but didn't feel the need to respond to every paragraph.
I don't tend to make long posts. I find them harder to read.

Until then, I'm not going to bother anymore as this is just a grotesk waste of my time.

There is no need to write an essay

 

[muhammad_isa]

Don't understand the Theory of Evolution. Got it.

Understanding of the ToE is require in order for you to understand the explanation.

Ha ha ha

 

[muhammad_isa]

So what makes you think that you're qualify to have a simple conversation about a particular subject if you're ignorant of the basic facts regarding that subject?

You can believe everything you read about ToE, but I don't.
I don't have to have a PhD to question the axioms of some people's belief in something that is claimed to have happened billions of years ago, is a proved fact.

 

[ratiocinator]

You can believe everything you read about ToE, but I don't.
I don't have to have a PhD to question the axioms of some people's belief in something that is claimed to have happened billions of years ago, is a proved fact.

So you've both demonstrated and admitted that you know nothing at all about the subject and the actual evidence that supports the conclusions but you're dismissing them anyway. Do you think this is at all rational?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..actual evidence..

..actual evidence?
I have difficulties in determining the truth of what happened 4 centuries ago, never mind 4 billion years ago.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have difficulties in determining the truth of what happened 4 centuries ago, never mind 4 billion years ago.

In some ways it's much, much easier. We are not talking about finding out what individuals did billions of years ago, we are talking about how life has developed and that evidence is clear from the fossil record, and, even more so, from genetics.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In some ways it's much, much easier. We are not talking about finding out what individuals did billions of years ago, we are talking about how life has developed and that evidence is clear from the fossil record, and, even more so, from genetics.

No .. we are talking about billions of years.
We can make some educated guesses, but that is all they are.

 

[metis]

No .. we are talking about billions of years.
We can make some educated guesses, but that is all they are.

Not true as there much we can tell about its expansion plus using various forms of dating techniques to diagnose the residuals. It's basically forensic physics matched with some quantum mechanics.

 

[ratiocinator]

We can make some educated guesses, but that is all they are.

You are simply wrong here, and since you've basically admitted you don't know what your talking about when it comes to this subject it seems rather bizarre to be making confident assertions about it.

Here's a few relativity simple articles that give a small indication of what the evidence is like (first two from a theist, Christian site):

Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles
Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles
The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists

And something a bit more academic:
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences

 

[muhammad_isa]

Here's a few relativity simple articles that give a small indication of what the evidence is like (first two from a theist, Christian site):
...

..sorry .. I don't take much notice of random websites.
Perhaps give me a ref. from wikipedia?

Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia

 

[ratiocinator]

..sorry .. I don't take much notice of random websites.
Perhaps give me a ref. from wikipedia?

The first few had the advantage of being relatively simple to understand, the last a an actual peer reviewed science paper. But if you really want wiki (which is usually reasonable but not always completely accurate or up to date), fine:

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia