Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Polymath257]

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?

Maybe you are just using the word 'understand' in a different way than I am. Light 'bends' because spacetime is curved. It is analogous to how an long distance airplane path is curved because of the curvature of the Earth. So, a airplane trip from Chicago to Peking goes close to the north pole.

As far as E=mc^2 goes, what is there to understand? It gives an energy equivalence to a certain amount of mass. It is generalized to E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2 for things that are moving with momentum p. And Einstein derived this more general equation as well. These are easy to use and are in common use in nuclear physics (for example).

Did Einstein understand that this equation would be used to build nuclear bombs when he first wrote it? Almost certainly not. Did he realize it was revolutionary? Absolutely.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Why do you think he didn't understand it? What aspect do you think he didn't understand? What aspect do you think still is not understood?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

A biiiig difference. Along with use of language is ability to put imagination to action. And then, of course, the ability to record history. Not to say to do research. Those few little differences in genes somehow make a big difference in application.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe you are just using the word 'understand' in a different way than I am. Light 'bends' because spacetime is curved. It is analogous to how an long distance airplane path is curved because of the curvature of the Earth. So, a airplane trip from Chicago to Peking goes close to the north pole.

As far as E=mc^2 goes, what is there to understand? It gives an energy equivalence to a certain amount of mass. It is generalized to E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2 for things that are moving with momentum p. And Einstein derived this more general equation as well. These are easy to use and are in common use in nuclear physics (for example).

Did Einstein understand that this equation would be used to build nuclear bombs when he first wrote it? Almost certainly not. Did he realize it was revolutionary? Absolutely.

Yes, I thought about that. I am using the word understand in a particular way. Again -- does anyone, including Einstein, understand why light bends? The word because may be used, but really is that why? How about how? And how it got to bend. Furthermore, I was reading a few things Isaac Newton said. One of which was about light. And -- he said something like (I paraphrase), light particles come from an object that is very bright. As far as I am concerned, that is truly (and I mean it) a brilliant statement. Does he understand how that object got to be so bright? (What do you think?)

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, I thought about that. I am using the word understand in a particular way. Again -- does anyone, including Einstein, understand why light bends? The word because may be used, but really is that why? How about how? And how it got to bend. Furthermore, I was reading a few things Isaac Newton said. One of which was about light. And -- he said something like (I paraphrase), light particles come from an object that is very bright. As far as I am concerned, that is truly (and I mean it) a brilliant statement. Does he understand how that object got to be so bright? (What do you think?)

I think that Newton was confusing cause and effect. Sir Arthur Eddington put it better, in The Internal Constitution of the Stars, when he said that a stellar atmosphere does not emit radiation because it is hot; it is hot because radiation is flowing through it. Ultimately, the radiation is generated in the core by the fusion of hydrogen nuclei to form helium, and it then works its way to the stellar surface. However, this has nothing to do with the evidence for and against evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I thought about that. I am using the word understand in a particular way. Again -- does anyone, including Einstein, understand why light bends? The word because may be used, but really is that why? How about how? And how it got to bend. Furthermore, I was reading a few things Isaac Newton said. One of which was about light. And -- he said something like (I paraphrase), light particles come from an object that is very bright. As far as I am concerned, that is truly (and I mean it) a brilliant statement. Does he understand how that object got to be so bright? (What do you think?)

Why does light bend? Because it follows the shortest path in a curved spacetime.

While Newton didn't understand *why* things emit light, we do NOW. We understand that it is because of transitions of electrons (or other charged particles) from one energy level to another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

He understood it extremely well. In fact he made predictions, very precise predictions of what we could observe if he was correct. A few of those were not confirmed in his own lifetime because the technology to test them did not exist. Here is an article that lists some of them:

Relativity's Long String of Successful Predictions

It does not cover the last prediction to be confirmed, that of gravitational waves. That was confirmed within the last ten years.

He understood his theory very well.

 

[Polymath257]

I think that Newton was confusing cause and effect. Sir Arthur Eddington put it better, in The Internal Constitution of the Stars, when he said that a stellar atmosphere does not emit radiation because it is hot; it is hot because radiation is flowing through it. Ultimately, the radiation is generated in the core by the fusion of hydrogen nuclei to form helium, and it then works its way to the stellar surface. However, this has nothing to do with the evidence for and against evolution.

Yes. But the core is hot because it is producing a LOT of energy and it produces radiation because it is hot. There is a difference in the dynamics at the core and in the atmosphere.

And you are right, this has very little to do with evolution, although it does argue against a young earth: it takes about 10,000 years for radiation produced at the core to get to the surface.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Ha! The "get-out-of-evidence" card. Brilliant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apparently the dna differences have been.

Explain the reasoning behind the word "apparently".
That word assumes you are basing it on something.

Is it evidence?

It's not, isn't it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So again - that little difference in dna is -- what? -- something that "just happened"

If you wish to call 7 million years worth of "survive, reproduce, mutate, repeat" something that "just happened", sure.

to give humans ability rather vastly different from chimpanzees and gorillas? Is that it? How you figure?

1. evolution doesn't happen with a goal in mind, so no, not "to give humans" anything. In the running evolutionary process there is only ever about what happens to work today, in the moment. That's where the selection pressures operate. Evolution doesn't "prepare" species for future circumstances. It instead "optimizes" them for the niche they happen to inhabit. And not because that is the goal. Rather because it is what inevitably happens when you have systems that reproduce with variation, which are in competition with peers over limited resources and where the variation can potentially have a net effect on the fitness of the system for better or worse.


2. despite narcistic popular opinion, we are not "vastly different" from chimps and gorilla's. We are in fact far more alike then we are different. And not just anatomically. I get it, you are impressed with the Hubble space telescope and alike. The fact is that the actual "intellectual" difference between that and a stick that is a priori slightly modified with planned intent to make it easier to catch ants, isn't exactly all that big.

The fact is that purely intellectually, humans today aren't "smarter" then humans 150.000 years ago. The difference rather is the amount of accumulated knowledge. If you could kidnap a baby from 100.000 years ago and raise it today, it wouldn't stand out much later in life, if at all. Yet 100k years ago we basically still lived in caves and were small nomadic tribes who didn't even have a concept of private ownership.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Another big behavioral difference is the way we impart knowledge on the next generation and from the other side, the way we learn things.

Saw this report docu on an experiment once, I thought it was hilarious. And it was very telling and exposed a deep rooted difference between the species.

It concerned a black box with which a series of manipulations / actions had to be performed and then the box would yield a candy.
Both young chimps and human kids are shown the series to get to the candy and are then given the box.
Both repeat the manipulations exactly and get the candy.

Then the same experiment is repeated only this time it's a transparent box, so you can see the mechanics inside that are triggered by the various manipulations.

The subjects are once again shown the same series of manipulations to get to the candy, but now it can be seen that half the manipulations are useless. They contribute nothing to get to the candy.
The subjects are handed the box again so they can get their candy.

Result: only the human children went through the full series of manipulations.
All the chimps left out every step which didn't contribute to the internal mechanism. They just skipped those parts and forgot about them.

Apparently, this is significant on many levels.

It reveals how we humans feel about authority and obedience, for one. Because part of the reason why children didn't skip the steps is because their job was to repeat what the experiment "leader" told them to do it. So there is a "blind obedience" factor there.

Then there's also the idea of us taking time to learn everything - including stuff that doesn't result in our needs being met right this instant, but also those that might maybe, some day, who knows, be useful.



It's easy to see how this makes the build-up of knowledge explode over generations.

 

[Polymath257]

Another big behavioral difference is the way we impart knowledge on the next generation and from the other side, the way we learn things.

Saw this report docu on an experiment once, I thought it was hilarious. And it was very telling and exposed a deep rooted difference between the species.

It concerned a black box with which a series of manipulations / actions had to be performed and then the box would yield a candy.
Both young chimps and human kids are shown the series to get to the candy and are then given the box.
Both repeat the manipulations exactly and get the candy.

Then the same experiment is repeated only this time it's a transparent box, so you can see the mechanics inside that are triggered by the various manipulations.

The subjects are once again shown the same series of manipulations to get to the candy, but now it can be seen that half the manipulations are useless. They contribute nothing to get to the candy.
The subjects are handed the box again so they can get their candy.

Result: only the human children went through the full series of manipulations.
All the chimps left out every step which didn't contribute to the internal mechanism. They just skipped those parts and forgot about them.

Apparently, this is significant on many levels.

It reveals how we humans feel about authority and obedience, for one. Because part of the reason why children didn't skip the steps is because their job was to repeat what the experiment "leader" told them to do it. So there is a "blind obedience" factor there.

Then there's also the idea of us taking time to learn everything - including stuff that doesn't result in our needs being met right this instant, but also those that might maybe, some day, who knows, be useful.



It's easy to see how this makes the build-up of knowledge explode over generations.

It also shows how mistakes in reasoning get passed down from generation to generation. This is likely part of how religious ritual gets developed: someone with OCD does a ritual and then *everyone* else starts to do that ritual.

Is religion a spandrel from this aspect of humanity?

 

[Polymath257]

A biiiig difference. Along with use of language is ability to put imagination to action. And then, of course, the ability to record history. Not to say to do research. Those few little differences in genes somehow make a big difference in application.

Yes, our more complex brains allow for a more complex culture. But our biology has not changed much in the last 100,000 years. Humans then were just as smart as they are now, biologically. But they didn't have the HUGE cultural accumulation of knowledge that has happened since that time.

Remember that things like literature and writing are *recent* phenomena: writing is only about 5-6,000 years old. Our biology didn't change when we learned how to write. Our culture did. We are not a different species from those people who drew cave art. The *only* difference is the difference in culture because we have learned, over time, how to manipulate the world around us.

So, what, precisely, is the big difference between us and other apes? To focus the mind, ask that about the humans that lived 50,000 years ago. They had no writing. They had no literature. They had no high technology. They did have tool use and probably language.

Given the fossil evidence, it is probably our tool use that drove the changes between us and the other apes. The change to language likely happened later. But these were both LONG before writing or any technology above that of the stone age.

 

[metis]

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?

I do believe there is a "Something" that is behind it all, and I call that Something "God". But can I prove this? No, I can't, but I've experience some things in my life that definitely point in that direction enough to help create the faith that I have.

Thus, with me, it's not an either/or thingy, so I have no problems whatsoever believing in God and fully accepting the ToE. To not accept the ToE is to slip into a Dark Age mentality whereas beliefs are elevated to "fact" level.

To put it another way, there is literally nothing in the ToE that negates one having a belief in God.

 

[metis]

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

Yes.

But the test of any mathematical theorem is does it work out in reality, and it did. Until then, some doubt might have and probably did exist in his mind and the mind of so many others.

BTW, one of my professors was at one of Einstein's seminars at Princeton, and he said that people there were so overwhelmed with one of his formula's that he put on the blackboard that they broke the board up into pieces so everyone could have a souvenir.

Are you aware that Einstein was a theist?

 

[Bear Wild]

A biiiig difference. Along with use of language is ability to put imagination to action. And then, of course, the ability to record history. Not to say to do research. Those few little differences in genes somehow make a big difference in application.

No. Putting imagination into action occurs with many animals. Polymath is absolutely correct, language was the main difference which did not require much genetic change. See the information on the Foxp2 gene for some insight. Language allowed for more complex social interactions giving humans the adaptive advantage. Cultural transmission of behaviors allowed for rapid development of tools and adaptive behaviors from increased cooperation. A written language created our modern social and environmental changes since communication could be preserved in language and allowed for more and more complex representations. The few changes in genetics that helped humans develop language, are responsible for what we are seeing in human activity. This creates the illusion of major genetic changes which is not the reality. The basic structures and genetics are in all primates and if the few necessary genetic changes were to occur in a primate for increased language/communication then we would see a similar change in behaviors.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why does light bend? Because it follows the shortest path in a curved spacetime.

While Newton didn't understand *why* things emit light, we do NOW. We understand that it is because of transitions of electrons (or other charged particles) from one energy level to another.

The Bible says we will never know the end from the beginning. We can be fascinated by it, however, and God wants us to be. But we will never know all there is to know.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.

But the test of any mathematical theorem is does it work out in reality, and it did. Until then, some doubt might have and probably did exist in his mind and the mind of so many others.

BTW, one of my professors was at one of Einstein's seminars at Princeton, and he said that people there were so overwhelmed with one of his formula's that he put on the blackboard that they broke the board up into pieces so everyone could have a souvenir.

Are you aware that Einstein was a theist?

Einstein must have realized there were (are) intelligent forces way beyond his curious mind. His religious upbringing was not strong, although I am pretty sure he was a bit upset about prejudice.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do believe there is a "Something" that is behind it all, and I call that Something "God". But can I prove this? No, I can't, but I've experience some things in my life that definitely point in that direction enough to help create the faith that I have.

Thus, with me, it's not an either/or thingy, so I have no problems whatsoever believing in God and fully accepting the ToE. To not accept the ToE is to slip into a Dark Age mentality whereas beliefs are elevated to "fact" level.

To put it another way, there is literally nothing in the ToE that negates one having a belief in God.

It depends on how one views it. And the Bible. I said how one views it. As I said, and I'm sticking to it right now because I don't see an escape clause, that little bit of dna difference makes a whole lot of difference in cognitive ability. The fact that no one knows how it got there doesn't mean someone will find out the mechanics of it later. Meaning the absolute difference of thinking and conceptional ability between man's so-called "closest" relative. So called.