Does evolution have a purpose?

[muhammad_isa]

It just looks like you've decided that you don't want to know and so are avoiding copious amounts of solid evidence.

Is that what it looks like?

I shall tell you what I think.
I think that I'm not committing myself to any particular series of events.
I am totally convinced that G-d is responsible for all that we see.

The scientific evidence shows that human beings evolve. Agreed upon.
Many people believe that the evidence strongly suggests that life has biologically evolved from one source.

Are they right?
I don't have enough knowledge to make my own conclusions.
I do not blindly follow the majority on most things, so why should I do so on this particular issue?

Does it prove that G-d does not exist if we all evolved from one biological source?
I wouldn't say so.
I would rather not spend my time pursuing this line of thought.
It is not likely to help me understand how I can improve anybody's lives.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I..I'm presenting this particular article because so far, the reasons that you've provided for rejecting the theory is based on your current beliefs and not scientific reasoning..

I'm sorry?
What am I rejecting, exactly?

You believe that biological life all has one biological source. Is that right?
It seems that the majority of people believe that it is scientifically proved.

In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life," a formal test of universal common ancestry was published. The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses that included horizontal gene transfer. Basic biochemical principles make it overwhelmingly likely that all organisms do have a single common ancestor. It is extremely unlikely that organisms that had descended from separate incidents of cell-formation would be able to complete a horizontal gene transfer without garbling each other's genes, converting them into noncoding segments.
Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

..so scientists think that it is overwhelmingly likely.
OK.

I still remain neutral on the subject.
It is not my main interest in life.
I am more interested in sociology and religious doctrines.

As far as I'm concerned, however G-d created mankind, that's what happened.

 

[ratiocinator]

I shall tell you what I think.
I think that I'm not committing myself to any particular series of events.

You're effectively ignoring the evidence, then.

I am totally convinced that G-d is responsible for all that we see.

Okay, but that's just faith.

The scientific evidence shows that human beings evolve. Agreed upon.

What do you mean by that?

Many people believe that the evidence strongly suggests that life has biologically evolved from one source.

Are they right?
I don't have enough knowledge to make my own conclusions.
I do not blindly follow the majority on most things, so why should I do so on this particular issue?

Nobody can know everything about everything, but most of us tend to trust the experts in a particular field. Do you go to a doctor when you're ill? Do you know all about medicine?

The basic evidence for evolution is relatively easy to both find and understand, just rejecting it, without (apparently) even considering it, seems irrational.

Does it prove that G-d does not exist if we all evolved from one biological source?
I wouldn't say so.

So would I.

I would rather not spend my time pursuing this line of thought.

So why do you keep posting about it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So why do you keep posting about it?

It's called a conversation.

You say that I ignore or reject scientific evidence.
I don't think that I do.

You are trying to bully me into taking a stance, suggesting that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that we all biologically evolved from LUCA.

I could agree with it .. or I could reject it.
I do neither. I am not convinced of either position.
That is my conclusion.

That is my personality. I don't take medical doctors' word for things either.
I listen to them, and I read about issues .. and I form my own opinion.

 

[ratiocinator]

You say that I ignore or reject scientific evidence.
I don't think that I do.

But you quite obviously do ignore it. You seem to think that it's perfectly reasonable to reject the evidence-based conclusions of science without actually considering the evidence. I mean, if you simply don't care, as you keep saying, then why talk about it at all? You could just say nothing, or that you're just not interested. Instead you seem to have the bizarre idea that you can say take a position that it's undecided without even seeing why the experts say that it is beyond reasonable doubt.

It's like somebody saying that we really don't know if germs can cause disease, or that the sun is at the centre of the solar system.

 

[night912]

I'm sorry?
What am I rejecting, exactly?

Ultimately, you are rejecting the truth based on whether or not it makes you feel good/satisfaction. You rejected the truth and responded with the above in order to satisfy your own feelings. If you would've accepted the truth, then you wouldn't have the need to omit parts of the things that I said and ask that question. And I have evidence to support this.

Here's what I actually wrote:

Here's a interesting article that relates to current state of mind regarding the Theory of Evolution. I'm presenting this particular article because so far, the reasons that you've provided for rejecting the theory is based on your current beliefs and not scientific reasoning.

After reading the entire paragraph and taking it all within context, obviously it was not apparent at all as to what that particular thing was that I said you were rejecting.

You believe that biological life all has one biological source. Is that right?
It seems that the majority of people believe that it is scientifically proved.

In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life," a formal test of universal common ancestry was published. The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses that included horizontal gene transfer. Basic biochemical principles make it overwhelmingly likely that all organisms do have a single common ancestor. It is extremely unlikely that organisms that had descended from separate incidents of cell-formation would be able to complete a horizontal gene transfer without garbling each other's genes, converting them into noncoding segments.
Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

..so scientists think that it is overwhelmingly likely.
OK.

The truth is, everything that you said above is nothing more than a red herring.

I still remain neutral on the subject.

The truth is, what you said below, is all the evidence that's needed for anyone who is thinking logically and is being intellectually honest, to come to the conclusion that your position is not neutral but is strongly in support of one side, in regards to that subject.

As far as I'm concerned, however G-d created mankind, that's what happened.

When you follow the evidence to where it leads instead of leading the evidence to where you want it to go, the truth will always end up presenting itself.

 

[night912]

I could agree with it .. or I could reject it.
I do neither. I am not convinced of either position.
That is my conclusion.

The evidence below clearly shows what's actually true, that your conclusion is that you are strongly convinced of one particular position. One does not need to be a scientist to observe what you have said.

Sorry, but your feelings have no bearing on what the truth is. Majority of the time, the truth hurts.

As far as I'm concerned, however G-d created mankind, that's what happened.

 

[night912]

It's called a conversation.

You say that I ignore or reject scientific evidence.
I don't think that I do.

You are trying to bully me into taking a stance, suggesting that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that we all biologically evolved from LUCA.

Nobody is bullying you into taking a stance because you've already taken a stance on the subject prior to you engaging in this conversation. And that is the truth whether you deny it or not.

That is my personality. I don't take medical doctors' word for things either.
I listen to them, and I read about issues .. and I form my own opinion.

Through observations, I would have to agree with you on this. You do form your own opinions, even if those opinions are wrong. There's nothing wrong with you forming your own opinions, just like there's nothing wrong with someone using evidence to show that your opinions are wrong regarding a particular subject, especially when you don't have any evidence to support your claims.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..your conclusion is that you are strongly convinced of one particular position..

No. where you are going wrong is thinking that it has to be one or the other, in order to believe "god did it".

That is simply not the case.
I don't believe that evolution itself, evolved without reason.
Call it a red herring if you like.

I try to make meaningful statements, rather than just name-calling.

 

[metis]

You speak as if science belongs to you.

You're misrepresenting what I posted as I didn't imply that whatsoever.

Science is merely a tool. It is dumb.

What's "dumb" and also dishonest is misrepresenting what science actually is and also making assumptions about myself whereas you don't know me. Thus, it's obvious that you have nothing to offer here on this at least.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

T
Clay of any types, cannot be transformed into human.

Aha, but that's why it is magic / a miracle!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, you are satisfied that you categorically know what happened millions of years ago.
I don't see that as a matter of science, whatever may be the evidence.

Emphasis mine. There you go.
The very root of your problem.

"whatever may be the evidence". It literally doesn't matter to you what the evidence is. You have already decided that you aren't going to believe it (likely because of incompatibility with your religious doctrines?) and you won't be changing your mind regardless of the evidence.

This is what you really mean when you say that you "don't care".

And that is also why we, rightfully, call you "willfully ignorant".

I only mentioned the word "conspiracy" in passing. It is not my main argument.
When people are forcing something down my throat, I'm highly suspicious. That's why I said that.

You might be satisfied with the conclusions of "Darwinism", but I'm not.
i.e. evolution alone is responsible for human minds etc.

1. nowhere in the theory is the word "alone" used. At best, it only mentions those things for which we have actual evidence - but as you have just noted clearly, you don't care about the evidence.

2. The only reason you are "suspicious" is because you feel that the science is incompatible with your religious doctrines. That's what you truly care about: upholding your religious beliefs. Science and evidence, that's what you do NOT care about.

That's fine off course.
But then don't expect to be taken seriously on any scientific subject.
And don't be surprised when people then also call you willfully ignorant.

Just be honest about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not speaking from that platform..
I don't know what happened millions of years ago.

Clearly you don't.
But are you at least willing to acknowledging that it is at least possible that by studying evidence, we can figure out some things about what happened millions of years ago?

I don't have to take somebody's word for it, if they claim that they do.

Indeed. You should never just take somebody's word about anything. This is why evidence trumps mere words. But you have already said that you don't care about evidence either, so..... yeah.... Then the conversation off course is kind of over.

Why should I? For what reason? Is science somehow Holy?

Science is rational and pretty good at coming up with accurate answers to hard questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said I don't know.
Furthermore, I don't care what happened millions of years ago.
I don't care how G-d created human beings.
I just know that He did

/facepalm


You BELIEVE that he did.
Big difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would somebody wish to state categorically that they know exactly what happened millions of years ago, if they don't have some kind of agenda?

Because the evidence, that you don't care about, demonstrates that that thing happened.

A meteor crashed here. Plenty of independent lines of evidence converge on the same date of impact.

Evidence of the past, leave evidence behind that can be studied in the present. And through this study, we can reconstruct the past and figure out what went down and when. The detail and accuracy with which we are able to do that, is limited by the amount and quality of evidence we have available for study.

But obviously, if you don't care about the evidence, then you won't be part of that knowledge gathering exercise. Or even comprehend it.

It's simply not necessary. One can show that the basic principles of evolution are true without doing that.

If nothing else, then knowledge is its own reward, always.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe that there is no distinct point in time when "a man" appears in the history of planet earth?

Correct, there is no such "distinct point".

Just like there is no "distinct point" when people started speaking french or spanish.

There's no such "distinct points" in any systems of development that work through the gradual accumulation of micro changes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I beg your pardon?
Are you saying that my conclusions on the subject are wrong because I haven't given you a detailed series of events that occurred millions of years ago?

No. He's saying that you didn't look at the evidence.
And he appears correct, considering you flat out said that you don't actually care about evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think that we can categorically know how human beings evolved.

Why exactly do you think that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Through observations, I would have to agree with you on this. You do form your own opinions, even if those opinions are wrong. There's nothing wrong with you forming your own opinions, just like there's nothing wrong with someone using evidence to show that your opinions are wrong regarding a particular subject, especially when you don't have any evidence to support your claims.

I, however, do think that there is a LOT wrong with dogmatically sticking to your mere opinions when evidence is presented that demonstrates those mere opinions to being incorrect.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why exactly do you think that?

..because whatever evidence you come up with cannot categorically prove exactly how mankind evolved.
We only know that they did, and not exactly how.

You can hypothesise what might have happened millions of years ago .. and that's fine.

You accuse me of not being interested in scientific evidence.
That's poppycock. I am very much interested.

Being interested, and agreeing with conclusions is two different things.

Specifically, I do not agree that mankind is solely the product of biological evolutionary process.