Evolution My ToE

[tas8831]

Here is my question about that: apparently mankind is the only group of thinking organisms that claim to worship god, whatever god they design or choose. At least that's what I understand right now. Do you know of any other group of beings that have any interest in worship something they claim is greater than themselves?

Nope.

What of it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

This article brings out many problems with peer review. Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems
Perhaps you will read it, perhaps not. But it's an eye-opener.

I've already read it. I was asking for your take on it and I was asking what you think peer review is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

chuckle. Says you. As well as scientists that believe that.
Again, lions are lions, humans are humans. Oh yes, and fish are fish. Lions are considered mammals since females suckle their young. So do humans. But humans are humans, apes are apes, and lions are lions who all have bones that develop and suckle their young. Fish are not mammals. SO?

You neither answered the question nor addressed the point.


Fish are fish, you say. Okay. Remember when I showed you what a mudskipper looks like, or those sharks with legs? So what kind are those? Are fish with legs still fish? Or ar they transitioning to something else? Sharks and trout are quite different ... are they both the fish "kind?" Humans and chimps share like 98% of the same DNA and yet you seem to think we are completely different kinds, when we are, in fact, both great apes (and mammals, among other things).

 

[Audie]

And yet, we know it *developed* from a single cell, right?

Forehead, meet brick wall.

 

[YoursTrue]

At which point in that classification do humans fail to be apes?

Looking at it from a straight biological viewpoint, at the point that man's intellectual capability is greater than chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

You neither answered the question nor addressed the point.


Fish are fish, you say. Okay. Remember when I showed you what a mudskipper looks like, or those sharks with legs? So what kind are those? Are fish with legs still fish? Or ar they transitioning to something else? Sharks and trout are quite different ... are they both the fish "kind?" Humans and chimps share like 98% of the same DNA and yet you seem to think we are completely different kinds, when we are, in fact, both great apes (and mammals, among other things).

I found the information about mudskippers, etc., interesting. Not passing over the point you are making, I was just seeing something explaining that birds came from dinosaurs, of which 80% of the dinosaurs were eradicated during an asteroid hit. Do I believe that birds really evolved from dinosaurs? (No.) Despite the spinal qualities, and feathers found on some fossil, do I still think that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Again, no. But -- that's me. Could I be wrong? It's possible, but I don't think so. But let's say I am wrong. Again -- looking at a representation of the inside of the human body (lungs, heart, veins, etc.) I can't see that it all just came about by itself. Now you may tell me no, it didn't come about by itself. But evolution really says it did, that is, from the first emergence of cells with 'life,' replicating themselves with mutations until humans were formed. I don't believe it.

 

[YoursTrue]

And yet, we know it *developed* from a single cell, right?

No. You really don't even know what the first cell was like. It's all assumption. (About the first cell.) While I believe that things 'happened' without a direct force in each individual organism from a Creator, I also do not believe it all happened by chance design. Meaning, evolution without a purpose. So can I explain beyond that? Not really. I can, however, look at fossils and see that early specimens had a spine and resemble other 'types' of organisms, thus making scientists believe they came by sheer genetic power. Can I explain more than that? Not really. Except to say that "in the beginning..."

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You really don't even know what the first cell was like. It's all assumption. (About the first cell.) While I believe that things 'happened' without a direct force in each individual organism from a Creator, I also do not believe it all happened by chance design. Meaning, evolution without a purpose. So can I explain beyond that? Not really. I can, however, look at fossils and see that early specimens had a spine and resemble other 'types' of organisms, thus making scientists believe they came by sheer genetic power. Can I explain more than that? Not really. Except to say that "in the beginning..."

I do wish that creationists did not use terms they do not understand. For example here we see the abuse of the word "assumption" .

What the poster does not realize is that one cannot just claim "assumption" . By doing so one takes on a heavy burden of proof. How does he know it is assumption? What was assumed? What wasn't assumed? When one does not understand the science one cannot support such a claim.

 

[Polymath257]

No. You really don't even know what the first cell was like. It's all assumption. (About the first cell.) While I believe that things 'happened' without a direct force in each individual organism from a Creator, I also do not believe it all happened by chance design. Meaning, evolution without a purpose. So can I explain beyond that? Not really. I can, however, look at fossils and see that early specimens had a spine and resemble other 'types' of organisms, thus making scientists believe they came by sheer genetic power. Can I explain more than that? Not really. Except to say that "in the beginning..."

You missed my point. We *developed* from a single, fertilized egg. And that all happens within a few months/years.

So, yes, we definitely *know* that we develop from a single cell.

Given that, why do you see it as so unbelievable that, over the course of billions of years, species can change an equivalent amount?

 

[Polymath257]

Looking at it from a straight biological viewpoint, at the point that man's intellectual capability is greater than chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, etc.

A matter of degree, not of kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

You missed my point. We *developed* from a single, fertilized egg. And that all happens within a few months/years.

So, yes, we definitely *know* that we develop from a single cell.

Given that, why do you see it as so unbelievable that, over the course of billions of years, species can change an equivalent amount?

Simply because -- it's unbelievable (for me) that humans or anything developed without an intelligent force behind the generating. Now, going back to Einstein (not that we were discussing him) for a moment. So Einstein was considered a very intelligent man. His religious background was Jewish, but according to what I am reading, his family was not observant. He went to a Catholic elementary school, and from my conversations with those who attended a Catholic school, the religious element was pretty rigid, if not explanatory. So why am I mentioning this? Because as a thinking person, he would have most likely examined various aspects of religion as he grew older. And, from Wikipedia on his religious views, this is a brief comment from it:
"He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever.""
He also stated, according to this article, that he did not believe in life after death, adding that "one life is enough for me." I can understand his viewpoint, although I now have a different outlook.
I didn't read his thoughts about evolution, but I'm assuming he accepted it.
He loved certain types of music. (Me, too.) I do not believe we have a soul that leaves the body and goes on to live somewhere else. I do, however, believe that God has the power to make dead ones rise. That includes Herr Einstein. And one day I'd like to speak to him about his thoughts regarding light and how he came upon his ideas. I look forward to that.
(So much for my thoughts about evolution and creation right now.)

 

[YoursTrue]

A matter of degree, not of kind.

Regardless of the use of the word 'kind,' the degree, while said to be only a few percentage points genetically from bonobos and chimpanzees, obviously makes a rather profound difference in intellect (as well as physical abilities). Clearly apes (I mean chimpanzees) are better at swinging from branches than humans are, except of course, those that are like Tarzan (?), I suppose. And yes, chimpanzees and gorillas, lions, giraffes do not collectively ever at all (how many ways can I emphasize this?) feel the need or desire or compulson socially or otherwise to make clothes and put them on. So there are several rather distinctive differences between chimpanzees and humans, despite only a few dna percentage points.

 

[YoursTrue]

You missed my point. We *developed* from a single, fertilized egg. And that all happens within a few months/years.

So, yes, we definitely *know* that we develop from a single cell.

Given that, why do you see it as so unbelievable that, over the course of billions of years, species can change an equivalent amount?

Not to belabor the point, because I answered as best I could in another post, it is a miracle in my opinion, of course, that a complicated organism of any kind (type?) develops from a single fertilized egg. It is too astounding, in my humble opinion, to have "come about by itself." But obviously we don't share the same point of view, and I respect you for your consideration. So to reiterate, the ability to multiply is there, as I believe, the power to do so instilled by God. And Einstein had the viewpoint that God, if he thought God existed at all, was not concerned (caring) with mankind. I think Einstein was wrong.
On the other hand, as I discussed here with a poster, evolution has no problem killing people, does it? The eventuality of living organisms is, according to the theory of evolution, death. Since I no longer accept the theory of evolution as that of life beyond abiogenesis coming about by chance 'natural' (or magnetic) circumstances, any charge against God causing destruction of any sort must be set against the idea that evolution itself is a fairly destructive idea, given the observable evidence of life around us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Looking at it from a straight biological viewpoint, at the point that man's intellectual capability is greater than chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, etc.

Why is that a differentiating property?

And what about humans with low intellectual capability? They are not human?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I found the information about mudskippers, etc., interesting. Not passing over the point you are making, I was just seeing something explaining that birds came from dinosaurs, of which 80% of the dinosaurs were eradicated during an asteroid hit. Do I believe that birds really evolved from dinosaurs? (No.) Despite the spinal qualities, and feathers found on some fossil, do I still think that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Again, no.

Are you aware that it is literally impossible to come up with a definition for "dinosaur" which includes all dinosaurs, yet excludes birds, without arbitrarily adding "...but not birds" to the definition?

Birds are dinosaurs just like humans are mammals.

You can't define "mammal" to include all mammals yet exclude humans either.

But -- that's me. Could I be wrong? It's possible, but I don't think so

You are wrong though. Very wrong.

But let's say I am wrong

yes, let's....

Again -- looking at a representation of the inside of the human body (lungs, heart, veins, etc.) I can't see that it all just came about by itself.

Through evolutionary processes, is not "by itself".

Also, arguments from incredulity / ignorance, are not reasonable. You're basically saying "I don't understand how it can happen so therefor it didn't"

Now you may tell me no, it didn't come about by itself.

Because it didn't.

But evolution really says it did

Evolution says the opposite. Off course, you'ld need to have some working knowledge of this process in order to understand that.

Humans, like all other species, came about through the process of reproduction with variation followed by selection. It's not "by itself". It's through biological evolution.

Just like an object doesn't fall "by itself". It falls by gravitational pull.

, that is, from the first emergence of cells with 'life,' replicating themselves with mutations until humans were formed. I don't believe it.

Your unbelief / incredulity, is not an argument against it. Not a valid one anyway...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Regardless of the use of the word 'kind,' the degree, while said to be only a few percentage points genetically from bonobos and chimpanzees, obviously makes a rather profound difference in intellect (as well as physical abilities).

It actually really isn't as profound as you like to think.

Clearly apes (I mean chimpanzees) are better at swinging from branches than humans are, except of course, those that are like Tarzan (?), I suppose.

No. No human, Tarzan or otherwise, is going to out-swing a chimp in trees.
Just like no human is going to beat a chimp in short term memory speed tests.

Amazing video btw.... By the time I've barely spotted where the 1 is, the chimp is already imputting all numbers. It's absolutely mindblowing how it memorizes the radomly placed numbers in literally the blink of an eye... if you blink when the numbers are visible, then you missed it.

And yes, chimpanzees and gorillas, lions, giraffes do not collectively ever at all (how many ways can I emphasize this?) feel the need or desire or compulson socially or otherwise to make clothes and put them on.

Why would they?

So there are several rather distinctive differences between chimpanzees and humans, despite only a few dna percentage points.

Not as distinct as you would like to think.

Every species has its unique properties, attributes, capabilities. It's what makes them a seperate species.
That you like to put special importance on the unique abilities of humans, only speaks to your narcisism tbh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It actually really isn't as profound as you like to think.




No. No human, Tarzan or otherwise, is going to out-swing a chimp in trees.
Just like no human is going to beat a chimp in short term memory speed tests.

Amazing video btw.... By the time I've barely spotted where the 1 is, the chimp is already imputting all numbers. It's absolutely mindblowing how it memorizes the radomly placed numbers in literally the blink of an eye... if you blink when the numbers are visible, then you missed it.



Why would they?



Not as distinct as you would like to think.

Every species has its unique properties, attributes, capabilities. It's what makes them a seperate species.
That you like to put special importance on the unique abilities of humans, only speaks to your narcisism tbh.

I have heard of that test, but that is the first time I saw it. I had to watch on YouTube,but there was no way that I was going to click on the link.

 

[Polymath257]

Not to belabor the point, because I answered as best I could in another post, it is a miracle in my opinion, of course, that a complicated organism of any kind (type?) develops from a single fertilized egg. It is too astounding, in my humble opinion, to have "come about by itself." But obviously we don't share the same point of view,

No, in fact, I do not. In fact, exactly the opposite.

I find the process amazing, yes. But it is NOT a miracle: it conforms at each stage to the physical laws as we know them. And that is the point: no violation of natural laws is required. No intervention by a supernatural being is required. it is a physical process and, as long as the mothier eats and breathes, *will* happen by itself.

and I respect you for your consideration. So to reiterate, the ability to multiply is there, as I believe, the power to do so instilled by God.

And if you want to consider the physical laws as being dictated by God, then I have no problem with that. But there is no supernatural intervention in biological development. And there is no supernatural involved in the evolution of species.

And Einstein had the viewpoint that God, if he thought God existed at all, was not concerned (caring) with mankind. I think Einstein was wrong.
On the other hand, as I discussed here with a poster, evolution has no problem killing people, does it? The eventuality of living organisms is, according to the theory of evolution, death. Since I no longer accept the theory of evolution as that of life beyond abiogenesis coming about by chance 'natural' (or magnetic) circumstances, any charge against God causing destruction of any sort must be set against the idea that evolution itself is a fairly destructive idea, given the observable evidence of life around us.

Killing people? Not the point. But yes, 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Every living thing eventually dies.

But those are true whether or not you believe in evolution. So, even if some God set things running, it is still a death machine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I found the information about mudskippers, etc., interesting.

Interesting in what way? How do you view it in light of the points I made in my last post?

Not passing over the point you are making, I was just seeing something explaining that birds came from dinosaurs, of which 80% of the dinosaurs were eradicated during an asteroid hit. Do I believe that birds really evolved from dinosaurs? (No.) Despite the spinal qualities, and feathers found on some fossil, do I still think that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Again, no. But -- that's me. Could I be wrong? It's possible, but I don't think so. But let's say I am wrong. Again -- looking at a representation of the inside of the human body (lungs, heart, veins, etc.) I can't see that it all just came about by itself. Now you may tell me no, it didn't come about by itself. But evolution really says it did, that is, from the first emergence of cells with 'life,' replicating themselves with mutations until humans were formed. I don't believe it.

I'd rather that you didn't pass over the point and gallop off into another one again.
I'd love for you to address my point for a change. I think your avoidance of the points being made is one of the major sticking points in your ability to understand the subject matter.

All you seem to have is one giant argument from incredulity/ignorance here ... "I can't imagine how A could be true so it must be false." It's an error in reasoning which is compounded every time you brush off the evidence presented to you and move onto something else without actually considering it.

Of course you could be wrong. Why do you think it is that thousands and thousands of independent groups of scientists all over the world for the last 160 years have all contributed evidence that points directly to the reality of evolution and nobody has yet managed to produce one piece of evidence that would falsify the theory? Why do you think it is that you, who has never conducted an experiment or a study, have never studied the subject matter in any depth, never so much as taken a course on the subject or read a book about it, doesn't stick to the subject matter on this forum and instead jumps all over the place; are more informed on this subject matter than all the world's scientists who actually study the subject matter in great depth and can demonstrate their claims? How is it that you know more than everybody else on this?

You are are wrong on this subject. Evolution is a fact of life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not to belabor the point, because I answered as best I could in another post, it is a miracle in my opinion, of course, that a complicated organism of any kind (type?) develops from a single fertilized egg. It is too astounding, in my humble opinion, to have "come about by itself." But obviously we don't share the same point of view, and I respect you for your consideration. So to reiterate, the ability to multiply is there, as I believe, the power to do so instilled by God. And Einstein had the viewpoint that God, if he thought God existed at all, was not concerned (caring) with mankind. I think Einstein was wrong.
On the other hand, as I discussed here with a poster, evolution has no problem killing people, does it? The eventuality of living organisms is, according to the theory of evolution, death. Since I no longer accept the theory of evolution as that of life beyond abiogenesis coming about by chance 'natural' (or magnetic) circumstances, any charge against God causing destruction of any sort must be set against the idea that evolution itself is a fairly destructive idea, given the observable evidence of life around us.

Except that it's not a miracle. It happens all the time, and comes about by completely natural, physical processes.
How do you reconcile your personal incredulity with a basic fact of life?


I guess you don't. You just believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it.
I couldn't live my life like that but to each his own, I guess.