Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Bear Wild]

Clearly a woman resembles a man with certain rather profound differences. The question is: how did difference of dna come about re: male and female. Please don't just say evolution. (thanks.)

What else could it be other than evolution. The god of the bible evidently had no clue on genetics thinking a rib from adam would make a female. Instead god created two men who could not reproduce. There is plenty of research about how sexual reproduction helped increased variation and increased the ability for change in a species increasing adaptability.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

lol -- that's why God did it as He willed.
No bottlenecks necessary anyway.
God can manipulate genetics as He wills, since He created genetics. Thinking about it -- the clay doesn't say to the potter, why did you make me this way.

Here's your "logic"....

Religion makes claim A (= humanity started out with just 2 humans; a single breeding pair)
Claim A makes testable prediction (= a single breeding pair creates an genetic bottleneck due to an extreme lack of genetic diversity which should be detectable in the genome)

The prediction is tested and it fails: there is no sign anywhere in the genome of such a severe bottleneck.


Over here in the rational world, such a giant failure of a prediction would make the claim considered disproven. If the claim is correct, there should be a bottleneck. No such bottleneck means the claim is false.


Your response though: "god magicked it away".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question is: how did difference of dna come about re: male and female. Please don't just say evolution. (thanks.)

This is like saying "how do my keys fall to the earth when I drop them instead of shooting into space. Please don't say "gravity""

 

[Tiberius]

Clearly a woman resembles a man with certain rather profound differences. The question is: how did difference of dna come about re: male and female. Please don't just say evolution. (thanks.)

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

So, going back to your comment, you don't think that something has no beginning? just to say. I'm sure greater philosophers and scientists have wrestled, shall we say, with this question.

There are several related concepts here:

beginning
caused
came into being
not eternal

One problem in discussing these is that they are ALL different.

To have a beginning means there is a first time when it exists.

To be caused means there is something previous to it that produces it as an effect

To come into being means there is a process extended over time that produces the thing

To not be eternal means that it has existed for only a finite amount of time.

I believe the universe is not caused. I don't know whether it is eternal or not. I don't believe it 'came into being', and I don't know if it had a beginning or not.

If time is infinite, then the universe is both eternal and had no beginning as well as being uncaused.

 

[Polymath257]

Ummmm
Einstein figured light bends, didn't he? If I'm wrong, please correct me. -- did he "understand" it? (I doubt it. But he recognized it.)

Absolutely he understood it. He was the one that *predicted* it, from the equations he discovered.

Light 'bends' because it moves in the straightest possible line in a curved spacetime. Just like the path of an airplane 'bends' because of the curvature of the Earth, the path of light 'bends' because of the curvature of spacetime.

Yes, people understand this.

 

[Polymath257]

lol -- that's why God did it as He willed.
No bottlenecks necessary anyway.
God can manipulate genetics as He wills, since He created genetics. Thinking about it -- the clay doesn't say to the potter, why did you make me this way.

There's always a 'get out of evidence' card with God, isn't there?

But that is *precisely* why the God concept is useless for understanding anything: it cannot be tested.

 

[metis]

ut -- I also still notice that things like writing and historical records have progressed rather rapidly from, um, humans -- not too much from chimpanzees, crocodiles, turtles, etc.

We tend to think that this was the niche that worked best for us, namely an oversized brain whereas cognition won out over speed, strength, etc. It's not so much that our brain is totally different but it's more a matter of degrees. A full grown chimp has the mental capacity of roughly a two-year old human.

 

[YoursTrue]

We tend to think that this was the niche that worked best for us, namely an oversized brain whereas cognition won out over speed, strength, etc. It's not so much that our brain is totally different but it's more a matter of degrees. A full grown chimp has the mental capacity of roughly a two-year old human.

While I agree with you in certain aspects of your answer, the little itty-bitty dna differences (so it is said about the small differences) between chimps and human dna make a whole lot of difference in the capacity of humans. Anyway, I'll let you off to your own thinking now. (Bye for now, as some say, including myself.)

 

[YoursTrue]

There's always a 'get out of evidence' card with God, isn't there?

But that is *precisely* why the God concept is useless for understanding anything: it cannot be tested.

Apparently the dna differences have been.

 

[YoursTrue]

Absolutely he understood it. He was the one that *predicted* it, from the equations he discovered.

Light 'bends' because it moves in the straightest possible line in a curved spacetime. Just like the path of an airplane 'bends' because of the curvature of the Earth, the path of light 'bends' because of the curvature of spacetime.

Yes, people understand this.

No, not really. He figured it from the evidence and what he reasoned out. But he certainly did not understand the propulsion of the elements beyond the observation. Again, it's kinda like gravity. It's there.

 

[metis]

While I agree with you in certain aspects of your answer, the little itty-bitty dna differences (so it is said about the small differences) between chimps and human dna make a whole lot of difference in the capacity of humans. Anyway, I'll let you off to your own thinking now. (Bye for now, as some say, including myself.)

If this were not the case, then geneticists, who obviously specialize in this area, would be totally against what I posted-- except they ain't. As anthropologists, a significant part of our education in physical anthropology deals with genetics.

 

[YoursTrue]

Absolutely he understood it. He was the one that *predicted* it, from the equations he discovered.

Light 'bends' because it moves in the straightest possible line in a curved spacetime. Just like the path of an airplane 'bends' because of the curvature of the Earth, the path of light 'bends' because of the curvature of spacetime.

Yes, people understand this.

P.S. They may understand some mechanics. Not the formula within the element, the inner workings, kind of like observing the chemical table of atomic elements. They 'see,' observe and can quantify elements. Sorry, but they don't "understand it." They understand they can quantify some things. They understand that H2O has certain properties.

 

[YoursTrue]

If this were not the case, then geneticists, who obviously specialize in this area, would be totally against what I posted-- except they ain't. As anthropologists, a significant part of our education in physical anthropology deals with genetics.

So again - that little difference in dna is -- what? -- something that "just happened" (by evolutionary means without a superior maker?) to give humans ability rather vastly different from chimpanzees and gorillas? Is that it? How you figure?

 

[Polymath257]

No, not really. He figured it from the evidence and what he reasoned out. But he certainly did not understand the propulsion of the elements beyond the observation. Again, it's kinda like gravity. It's there.

No, actually. his equations came first. Then the observations. The evidence of light bending came years after he predicted it.

 

[Polymath257]

P.S. They may understand some mechanics. Not the formula within the element, the inner workings, kind of like observing the chemical table of atomic elements. They 'see,' observe and can quantify elements. Sorry, but they don't "understand it." They understand they can quantify some things. They understand that H2O has certain properties.

And, actually, they can predict, from first principles, the properties of most of the atoms in the periodic table. They know how the electrons move, how the properties of the nucleus determine the atom, etc.

I'm not sure what extra is required for 'understanding'. it isn't just that they know there are certain properties. We can start from first principles and *explain* why those properties arise.

 

[YoursTrue]

We tend to think that this was the niche that worked best for us, namely an oversized brain whereas cognition won out over speed, strength, etc. It's not so much that our brain is totally different but it's more a matter of degrees. A full grown chimp has the mental capacity of roughly a two-year old human.

OK, here's another question: you think Einstein really understood the equation he made up about e=mc2?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, actually. his equations came first. Then the observations. The evidence of light bending came years after he predicted it.

So he really didn't understand it when he made up the equations. And frankly, you cannot convince me he or anyone understood and understands how light bends. But I asked metis another question about this, which I will pose to you. That is, do you really think and believe that Einstein understood the famous equation e=mc2 when he made that up?

 

[YoursTrue]

And, actually, they can predict, from first principles, the properties of most of the atoms in the periodic table. They know how the electrons move, how the properties of the nucleus determine the atom, etc.

I'm not sure what extra is required for 'understanding'. it isn't just that they know there are certain properties. We can start from first principles and *explain* why those properties arise.

What about the 'rather significant' differences of dna from chimpanzees to humans? Small, apparently, but how do you explain the cognitive differences? Let me guess. It just happened?

 

[Polymath257]

What about the 'rather significant' differences of dna from chimpanzees to humans? Small, apparently, but how do you explain the cognitive differences? Let me guess. It just happened?

The differences are not that great. Two chimp chromosomes merged, but that has almost no effect on the genetics. The overall progression for the human line is toward a larger brain, which was probably driven by our social aspects and tool use. That lead to better 'abstract thinking', and, most importantly, language.

I'd say the single most important difference between humans and other great apes is our use of language. Other apes have some very basic language capabilities, but nothing like what humans have.