No problems. We are indeed taught that it is Nature that acts. And nature is said to be higher and lower: subtle mind and gross matter respectively. But Nature does not stand alone. Nature has to be of something.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution has never been observed
- Thread starter Acim
- Start date
No problems. We are indeed taught that it is Nature that acts. And nature is said to be higher and lower: subtle mind and gross matter respectively. But Nature does not stand alone. Nature has to be of something.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Not when you take the third term out. "Nature" can refer to a specific entity, or a property of an entity. It is misleading to use both meanings in the same context.
Photonic
Ad astra!
And nature can quite clearly come from nature, or birth wouldn't be possible.
Some divinity would have to intervene to cause someone to be pregnant after changing absolutely ...no, I would think not. This violates Occham's Razor to an extreme to degree, that's for damn sure.
Not saying Occham's Razor is the value by which all things are graded, but it is the most frequent argument Theists tend to come up with to rationalize such an infinitely complex individual existing.
No problem again. Either way we have an entity.
As I've asked in another thread, what is unnatural? Within physical context that is observed around us, I find it nearly impossible to conclude anything as unnatural. Man-made climate change is 'completely natural' given the context. Likewise, 'implementation of man-made resolutions to man-made climate change' would also be 'completely natural.'
Photonic
Ad astra!
I have to say that is quite the question. I personally do not see "Man-made" as unnatural, as it has arisen from Mans own mind, which is a creation of "nature" itself.
This of course is purely a metaphysical conjecture of philosophy, and can't really be applied to any debate considered for science, only the context that the science is precluding.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yes and NO. Nature didn't "DO" anything. Nature just happened.
David M
Well-Known Member
Wrong.
We know that evolution is a fact because its observable. It happens.
We accept the Theory of Evolution because it is supported by mountains of evidence.
We don't accept the existence of God because there is no evidence for the existence of God and there is evidence that refutes the claims made about God (especially the God of the Abrahamic religions.
Those conclusions are separate things.
Photonic
Ad astra!
It's also repeatable AND Observable. That's important! (Seriously, it's really friggen important)
Me Myself
Back to my username
Continuing on with main purpose of this thread. And having desire to do a summary for subsection of the material. I am still in section having to do with Patterns, and just finished subsection about "Tree Building" which made the following key points (plus my added commentary).
Note: My posts on this subsection are found in: 239, 269, 277 and 287.
1 - Some humans desire to study lineages of organisms and postulate interrelationships of any / all lineages, which they use to form a hypothesis about how the organisms are relateda phylogeny.
2 - To build a phylogenetic tree, biologists collect (consciously selective) data about the characters of each organism they are interested in. Characters are heritable traits that can be compared across organisms. (If the traits can be compared in reasonable way, given the evidence, this tells me intelligent design is at work. And that we are that which is (very much) invoking the design (via comparison) and insisting on it being intelligent (based on our understandings, our models, our awareness of 'what is going on.')
3 - Goal is to find evidence that will help us group organisms into less and less inclusive clades. Specifically, we are interested in shared derived characters. ("will help us group" and "we are interested in shared characters" is, us making ((up)) the intelligent connections about the pattern (design) to be found in this tree of life. For clearly without us, intelligent beings, consciously and collectively telling this story, there is no such process to be found in nature, objectively speaking. We are the natural result of the intelligent design, now studying itself, as historical process).
4 - Process at work:
A) A phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis (supposed explanation).
B) Characters in model (tree) are desired to be reliable indicators of common ancestry (to conform to our supposition)
C) We use characters that appear the same / similar, because this will fit in with the supposition that they were inherited from a common ancestor
D) This is how we know there is common ancestry
(The evidence must fit this process, for our goal is clear, and our purpose certain.)
5 - Not all characters are homologies, some are analogousthat is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they evolved to serve the same function. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution. (it seems somewhere between oddly coincidental and plausibly design by conscious selection to have fairly similar designs in vastly different regions where lineages are determined not easily connected.)
6 - Criteria to help decide whether a shared morphological character is likely to be a homology:
A) Same basic structure (same bones)
B) Same relationship to other features (same or similar connections)
C) Same development
> likely to be reliable indicators of shared ancestry. (IOW, if the shared character is appearance of same selective criteria, it will fit hypothesis of common ancestry. Noted by me as 'stacking the deck.)
7 - According to (the bias of) parsimony, the best hypothesis is the one that requires the fewest evolutionary changes.
Note: My posts on this subsection are found in: 239, 269, 277 and 287.
Summary of Tree Building subsection
1 - Some humans desire to study lineages of organisms and postulate interrelationships of any / all lineages, which they use to form a hypothesis about how the organisms are relateda phylogeny.
2 - To build a phylogenetic tree, biologists collect (consciously selective) data about the characters of each organism they are interested in. Characters are heritable traits that can be compared across organisms. (If the traits can be compared in reasonable way, given the evidence, this tells me intelligent design is at work. And that we are that which is (very much) invoking the design (via comparison) and insisting on it being intelligent (based on our understandings, our models, our awareness of 'what is going on.')
3 - Goal is to find evidence that will help us group organisms into less and less inclusive clades. Specifically, we are interested in shared derived characters. ("will help us group" and "we are interested in shared characters" is, us making ((up)) the intelligent connections about the pattern (design) to be found in this tree of life. For clearly without us, intelligent beings, consciously and collectively telling this story, there is no such process to be found in nature, objectively speaking. We are the natural result of the intelligent design, now studying itself, as historical process).
4 - Process at work:
A) A phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis (supposed explanation).
B) Characters in model (tree) are desired to be reliable indicators of common ancestry (to conform to our supposition)
C) We use characters that appear the same / similar, because this will fit in with the supposition that they were inherited from a common ancestor
D) This is how we know there is common ancestry
(The evidence must fit this process, for our goal is clear, and our purpose certain.)
5 - Not all characters are homologies, some are analogousthat is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they evolved to serve the same function. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution. (it seems somewhere between oddly coincidental and plausibly design by conscious selection to have fairly similar designs in vastly different regions where lineages are determined not easily connected.)
6 - Criteria to help decide whether a shared morphological character is likely to be a homology:
A) Same basic structure (same bones)
B) Same relationship to other features (same or similar connections)
C) Same development
> likely to be reliable indicators of shared ancestry. (IOW, if the shared character is appearance of same selective criteria, it will fit hypothesis of common ancestry. Noted by me as 'stacking the deck.)
7 - According to (the bias of) parsimony, the best hypothesis is the one that requires the fewest evolutionary changes.
Housekeeping update. I had hoped to do this with OP, but I can (for some reason) no longer edit that post. So perhaps I will have to do this sort of housekeeping periodically in this thread.
Here are the posts (by me) in this thread that are intended to be in line with OP:
Here are the posts (by me) in this thread that are intended to be in line with OP:
- Post #3: Evolution has never been observed (Part 1)
- Post #4: Evolution has never been observed (Part 2)
- Post #7: Re: Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 1)
- Post #48: Re: Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 2)
- Post #60: Re: Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 3)
- Post #74: Re: Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 4)
- Post #85: Summary understanding of Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 1)
- Post #98: Re: Evolution 101 (Intro)
- Post #100: Re: Evolution 101 - Definition (Part 1)
- Post #104: Re: Evolution 101 - Definition (Part 2)
- Post #121: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns (Part 1)
- Post #150: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns (Part 2)
- Post #202: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Phylogenies (Part 1 and 2)
- Post #237: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Phylogenetic Starbursts
- Post #239: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Tree Building (Part 1)
- Post #269: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Tree Building (Part 2)
- Post #277: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Tree Building (Part 3)
- Post #287: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Tree Building (Part 4)
- Post #351: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Tree Building (Summarization)
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Just to touch on one of your points.
Analogies are usually the result of responding to simple physics... like hydrodynamics. This explains why Tuna, Sharks, Dolphins and Seals all have the same basic body shape even though none of them are closely related to the others.
There is nothing requiring conscious decisions about what makes you hydrodynamic.
wa:do
Analogies are usually the result of responding to simple physics... like hydrodynamics. This explains why Tuna, Sharks, Dolphins and Seals all have the same basic body shape even though none of them are closely related to the others.
There is nothing requiring conscious decisions about what makes you hydrodynamic.
wa:do
Your opinion is duly noted.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No, your earlier statement about an unfounded requirement is a matter of opinion.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You are the one who suggested "conscious selection"... which is totally unnecessary.
For you. I get that. It is not an opinion I share.
I'm guessing for you convergent evolution is oddly coincidental?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
As a computer scientist, it is unsurprising that many attempts to solve the same problem resulted in the same solution.
Photonic
Ad astra!
Lungs. Gills. Or...whatever. He'll just say we don't exist every time you throw facts in his face.