Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

Your meaning isn't clear.

If you mean that birds and mammals have different bacterial ancestors, then no, that is not the case: their most recent common ancestor was not bacterial. Any bacteria that were ancestors of either were ancestors of both.

I'm not asking about "most recent common ancestor." It is all... speculation.

 

[YoursTrue]

My simple answer is no as this is not how evolution works.

Ok now who said this?
"when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You think the stars think about when they're going to explode? Your mind thinks that the planets and stars and orbits have minds?? (I am laughing here...)
So they are subject to laws that also just came about without any intelligent force creating these laws? Or do you say you just don't know...

Do you understand the difference between believing in something on faith and being able to demonstrate something with evidence and reason?

There is no evidence revealing an intelligence or the action of an intelligence in the origin of the phenomena that the laws of nature describe.

Many people believe that God is behind that creation, but there is nothing for believers or scientists to use to support a claim for God. You may have a personal experience that convinces you that what you believe is real, but you have no evidence that you can us e to demonstrate that reality to others so that they can know it too. How would anyone be able to determine if your personal experience actually took place or means what you believe it means? The fact that you or I believe in something is not evidence that something exists.

That is the reality of the believed in contrast with the demonstrable. Accept it or not, but it is what it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok now who said this?
"when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases."

I do not know. Who said it?

Science does not have articles of faith. Even the most dogmatic views in science are held as tentative. However, some ideas have the support of so much evidence that it would require extremely robust bodies of evidence to overturn them. Even in such a case it is the responsibility of scientists to be skeptical. To review. To discuss. To test. And not to accept any random claim without question. Confusing the reticence of skepticism with belief in a religious dogma is a false position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So the predecessors didn't think about what they would evolve to. And I guess neither do microscopic organisms think they could become plants or animals. And dinosaurs' minds didn't tell them hey look we can eventually become birds. As I was listening to a psychologist on radio explain about hoarding during the CV19 situation, hoarding can be applied to various situations. Different contexts. Meaning in our discussion, planets don't have "minds," stars don't have "minds," dinosaurs didn't figure they'd evolve to become birds. In these circumstances, they're mindlessly moving, if you believe they "evolved" from microorganisms to become trees, flowers, giraffes, men and women, etc. Microorganisms yes, mindlessly evolve, if evolution is the case. Yes, evolution according to theory is well described as mindless.

Describing it as mindless is done to elicit bias and does not well describe evolution at all. It is an emotional response by those that do not want to understand for doctrinal reasons and not a useful description at all.

Creationists like it for the very reasons that make it useless in providing a description of the nature of evolution. It implies erratic and entirely random change that is not evolution. It is misapplied, not due to a lack of evidence for a guiding mind, but for the ambiguity of meaning and misleading connotations evoked by its use. It is true there is no evidence of a mind purposefully guiding evolution to predetermined points. The guidance of evolution is nature itself described as best we can as natural selection. Not an erratic, entirely random and chaotic condition that mindless implies.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not asking about "most recent common ancestor." It is all... speculation.

Then be ore clear about what you are asking. Like I said, any bacteria that is an ancestor of birds is also an ancestor of mammals.

 

[Polymath257]

You think the stars think about when they're going to explode? Your mind thinks that the planets and stars and orbits have minds?? (I am laughing here...)
So they are subject to laws that also just came about without any intelligent force creating these laws? Or do you say you just don't know...

No, but that is the point. Most processes in nature don't have minds controlling them. Why would you expect evolution to be different?

How would laws be created without another governing law allowing it?

 

[Polymath257]

So the predecessors didn't think about what they would evolve to. And I guess neither do microscopic organisms think they could become plants or animals. And dinosaurs' minds didn't tell them hey look we can eventually become birds.

Of course not. Why would you think they *planned* it?

As I was listening to a psychologist on radio explain about hoarding during the CV19 situation, hoarding can be applied to various situations. Different contexts. Meaning in our discussion, planets don't have "minds," stars don't have "minds," dinosaurs didn't figure they'd evolve to become birds. In these circumstances, they're mindlessly moving,

Even if dinosaurs had minds, their evolution was not part of what they were thinking about. We don't say that someone is 'mindlessly falling' out of a tree. We don't say that they are 'mindlessly digesting their food'.

if you believe they "evolved" from microorganisms to become trees, flowers, giraffes, men and women, etc. Microorganisms yes, mindlessly evolve, if evolution is the case. Yes, evolution according to theory is well described as mindless.

And so is the force of gravity. Or the laws telling how light can move.

Why is it such a big deal to you to label it as mindless (which carries the idea of being chaotic and useless)?

 

[Polymath257]

Again, either evolution is mindlessly moving in a direction or it is not mindlessly moving in a certain direction.

How about it is simply moving in a direction? Why bring in minds when MOST processes have no mind guiding them?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Meaningless

Not to people who are intellectually honest.

Most people think of dinos as mostly huge creatures that used to roam the earth

Which is irrelevant.
What "most people think" has no bearing on what is actually true.

ps: even in the dino era, most dino's weren't the huge creatures you are think of at all.

Technically some dyed in the wool evos might consider chickens and birds dinos, but that is largely part and parcel of a whole belief set.

No, it's because they are physically dinosaurs, just like humans and cows are physically mammals.

It is impossible to come up with a definition of "dinosaur" that includes ALL dinosaurs, but which excludes birds, without arbitrarily adding "but not birds". Just like it isn't possible to come up with a definition of what a "mammal" is which includes all mammals yet excludes humans.

When you define what a dino is that includes all dino's... then birds fit that definition. Because they ARE dino's.

You can continue sticking your head in the sand and drown in your usual denial. But it won't make the facts disappear.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So the predecessors didn't think about what they would evolve to. And I guess neither do microscopic organisms think they could become plants or animals. And dinosaurs' minds didn't tell them hey look we can eventually become birds. As I was listening to a psychologist on radio explain about hoarding during the CV19 situation, hoarding can be applied to various situations. Different contexts. Meaning in our discussion, planets don't have "minds," stars don't have "minds," dinosaurs didn't figure they'd evolve to become birds. In these circumstances, they're mindlessly moving, if you believe they "evolved" from microorganisms to become trees, flowers, giraffes, men and women, etc. Microorganisms yes, mindlessly evolve, if evolution is the case. Yes, evolution according to theory is well described as mindless.

It's a pretty meaningless word to add to the process. It serves no purpose.

Do you also insist on adding the word "mindless" when talking about wind direction? Rain? Earthquakes? Gravity? Chemical reactions? Radiation?

Because the word "mindless" applies to pretty much everything where a mind isn't involved.
What does it add of value to the discussion? I say: nothing whatsoever. Instead, it just distracts and derails.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, either evolution is mindlessly moving in a direction or it is not mindlessly moving in a certain direction.

And objects either mindlessly fall to earth or they don't mindlessly fall to earth.
Since a mind isn't involved in gravitational effects, it falls "mindlessly".

So what? Why insist on adding that word? What does it add to the conversation?

The direction of evolution of any given species is "controlled" by natural selection. The parameters of natural selection are dictated by the environment / the habitat of the species in question.

What is the problem?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not asking about "most recent common ancestor." It is all... speculation.

Not speculation by any means.
Instead, based on piles and piles of genetic and morphological evidence.

 

[dad]

Not to people who are intellectually honest.

Great, so if you think you are one of those people, explain why it is meaningful.

Which is irrelevant.
What "most people think" has no bearing on what is actually true.

Thanks for your thoughts.

ps: even in the dino era, most dino's weren't the huge creatures you are think of at all.

Right. Looking at dino museums, it does seem that big ones dominate though.

No, it's because they are physically dinosaurs, just like humans and cows are physically mammals.

"
During the Age of Dinosaurs, there were other reptiles living on land and in the seas, including pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and plesiosaurs (ocean-dwelling reptiles). But they did not have a hole in their hip socket and so were not dinosaurs.
Modern birds are classified as a type of dinosaur because they share a common ancestor with non-avian (non-flying) dinosaurs"

What makes a dinosaur a dinosaur? (article) | Khan Academy

Prove that birds share a common ancestor with non-flying dinosaurs? Ha

It is impossible to come up with a definition of "dinosaur" that includes ALL dinosaurs, but which excludes birds, without arbitrarily adding "but not birds". Just like it isn't possible to come up with a definition of what a "mammal" is which includes all mammals yet excludes humans.

'Come up with a definition' is a good way to put it.

When you define what a dino is that includes all dino's... then birds fit that definition. Because they ARE dino's.

That does seem to loom large in your mind. But I could easily come up with a definition of dinos that does not include birds! The created birds of Eden were not dinosaurs! If some birds evolved rapidly as needed to adapt to the big world they were commanded to fill, then perhaps some did become dinos! But those adapted birds would have been the exceptions rather than the rule. So we do not need to include all birds in the dinosaur classification at all.
The word mammal is somewhat deceptive when it includes mankind. That is just creating a classification that defines man as another animal. Basically a religious and ignorant statement.

 

[metis]

So the predecessors didn't think about what they would evolve to.

Probably not.

Yes, evolution according to theory is well described as mindless.

That's absolutely false and what you have done is to allow yourself to be tricked into a false narrative.

Again, as I have repeatedly stated, we simply cannot tell if there was a deity involved with creation, thus we cannot discount that possibility. If there was, and I believe it is likely, then there likely was God's involvement even though it's really quite logical he did not create every little thing that might happen. For example, why would a loving God create miscarriages and serious birth defects, or cause tsunamis and hurricanes that would kill thousands of innocent people?

And about 1/2 of all American biologists are theists, and most of the rest are agnostics, not atheists. And roughly 70% of all Christian theologians accept the ToE as long as it is understood that God ultimately was behind it all.

 

[metis]

Taught what? That evolution doesn't have thoughtful direction from an "intelligent mind, or creator?"

See my last post.

If the above is what your church is telling you, maybe find a church that simply doesn't lie in the name of "God". I did. The irony is that same exact church and denomination changed its tune and now accepts the reality of the ToE. If your church refuses to acknowledge reality, then let me recommend you find one that does.

BTW, it's very easy to basically prove the ToE, and it goes like this: All matter appears to change over time, and all genes and life forms are matter and thus change over time. That's what "evolution" is, and it stands to common sense even if one is not familiar with the science.

 

[metis]

Because either the accounts are true or they're not true.

That's not at all true because some accounts may only be partially true.

So then do you believe that Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple there in Jerusalem, as the Bible said he did? Or do you think that's another fabricated story in Matthew 24?

We know the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, and I have no reason to believe that Jesus didn't predict that. However, there's no way of knowing whether he actually made that prediction with any certainty since Matthew was written after the Temple had already been destroyed. Maybe Jesus said something along that line that Matthew applied to the destruction of the Temple, but this I simply do not know.

To put it another way, I don't believe in everything I read, nor do I believe that the Bible is inerrant, which is clearly what we call a "blind belief"-- namely a belief based on a form of idolatry. .However, it is a book of faith that I read at least twice per day every day of the year. Plus, I've taught Christian and Jewish theology for several decades now, so if it didn't mean much to me why would I have done that. [notice there's no questionmark at the end, as I wouldn't have done that if I didn't believe]

 

[metis]

Ok now who said this?
"when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases."

It really does't make a difference who said that. After all, we are human too, and I certainly never stated nor implied otherwise.

 

[dad]

And about 1/2 of all American biologists are theists, and most of the rest are agnostics, not atheists. And roughly 70% of all Christian theologians accept the ToE as long as it is understood that God ultimately was behind it all.

So they think Adam and Eve evolved rather than were created?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Great, so if you think you are one of those people, explain why it is meaningful.

The person I responded to, denied that birds are dino's or are descendend from dino's.
The fact is, that birds ARE dino's. In response to such a denial, it seems quite meaningless to point out that it is impossible to define what a dino while birds being exluded from that definition.

Birds are dino's, just like humans are mammals.

Thanks for your thoughts.

It's a fact. Not some mere thought or opinion.
What "people think" doesn't necessarily reflect what is actually true. No matter how many people think it.
100% of people can think they earth is flat, but it would still be spherical regardless.

Right. Looking at dino museums, it does seem that big ones dominate though.

They dominate perception in human culture and perhaps idd even exhibits. But they did not dominate, full stop.


Consider this: the vast majority of americans that I know off, are famous celebrity actors, musicians, performers, etc.

Yet among all americans, these are a minority. Most americans aren't big shots.
This is perception. When you say "dino", people think T-rex or brontosaurus.

They don't consider velociraptor, which was the size of an average turkey.
There are dino's that would fit in your hand.

"
During the Age of Dinosaurs, there were other reptiles living on land and in the seas, including pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and plesiosaurs (ocean-dwelling reptiles). But they did not have a hole in their hip socket and so were not dinosaurs.
Modern birds are classified as a type of dinosaur because they share a common ancestor with non-avian (non-flying) dinosaurs"

What makes a dinosaur a dinosaur? (article) | Khan Academy

Prove that birds share a common ancestor with non-flying dinosaurs? Ha

Read the article you posted and use the links the left of the very site you cited.

Linking birds and dinosaurs (article) | Khan Academy

'Come up with a definition' is a good way to put it.

Obviously one needs to come up with definitions, as definitions aren't found under rocks.
The are instead the result and conclusion of rigorous research and analysis of data.

Once more: it is impossible to formulate a defintion of "dinosaur" which includes all dino's but excludes birds. Just like you can't define what a mammal is that describes all mammals but not humans.

When you define what a dino is, then that definition applies to birds also. Because birds ARE dino's.

You may, and probably will, continue to deny this. But you'll just be wrong about that. Not that you care about being wrong, off course.

That does seem to loom large in your mind. But I could easily come up with a definition of dinos that does not include birds!

You are welcome to try, but you will not be succesfull.
Go for it.

The created birds of Eden were not dinosaurs!

Or real.

If some birds evolved rapidly as needed to adapt to the big world they were commanded to fill, then perhaps some did become dinos!

Evolution doesn't work like that. Species can not jump branches or outgrow their ancestry. This is a law of biology. Making stuff up, is not an argument.

But those adapted birds would have been the exceptions rather than the rule. So we do not need to include all birds in the dinosaur classification at all.

Yes we do, by necessity.
Birds are dino's just like humans are mammals.
You can't define "dino" to include all dino's while excluding birds. ANY definition of "dino" that includes all dino's, automatically also includes birds. Because birds are dino's.

Just like ANY definition of "mammal" that includes all mammals, automatically includes humans. Because humans are mammals.

The word mammal is somewhat deceptive when it includes mankind.

No it's not.

Here's a generic biological definition:
Mammals are a group of warm-blooded vertebrate animals and include the largest animals on the planet. They are distinguished from other animals by having hair or fur and mammary glands for milk production in females

Find me a mammal that doesn't fit that definition. Find me a human that doesn't fit that definition.
Find me a non-mammal that does fit that defintion.

If it's wrong, it should be rather trivial to show it to be wrong. But you can't, off course.

That is just creating a classification that defines man as another animal

Nope. It's not arbitary at all. It's just listing the unique shared features of a group of animals that distinguishes them from animals not part of that group.

Basically a religious and ignorant statement.

Except that instead, it's based on objective and independently verifiable evidence.