I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Subduction Zone]

We see purpose, by their interaction.

Amazing y’all miss this.

Just by observing interactions between organisms… there is a balance that’s quite obvious.
There is always prey for the predator. Why? Since survival is the best pressure, prey animals should quickly evolve fangs, talons, poison their flesh, whatever is needed to stop those hunters.

But we don’t see that. The balance is maintained. Rodents have been around for eons.

If the ‘gene is selfish’, it’s mutations wouldn’t maintain the equilibrium we observe.

Selfishness does nothing but disrupt, and brings disorder & chaos.

You won’t want to believe this, but the evolution of the genome that we do observe, is of Divine origin, and has Divinely-set limits. IMO.

I will explain my thoughts, later… I’m tired.

@nPeace , @YoursTrue , y’all might like this, too.

Sorry but only appears to be wishful thinking. There appear to be even better explanations from the evolution side since they can find evidence for their claims.

Scientific evidence is not a hard idea to understand. Nor is the bar as to what qualifies for it very high. Which makes it even more of a puzzle why creationists cannot provide any scientific evidence for their beliefs, just as they failed in the Dover trial. An argument from ignorance is never "evidence".

 

[viole]

Then I suggest you point out exactly where you see that I admit we are mammals. Then we can take the next step.

Look for the text. Are you not creative?

Ciao

- viole

 

[joelr]

No believer in evolution is going to answer your questions honestly.
To your second question, this article provides an interesting answer.

This isn't that complex? First evolution takes long periods of time. Whenever someone says "why don't se see" you are not asking about evolution. You are parroting some apologetics.
Whatever common ancestor began evolving into a hominid, there was clearly a need to walk at least part time for survival. The forests in the area were turning to grasslands. As hominids began to evolve millions of years have passed. The original ancestor who was a tree ape went extinct like 99% OF ALL SPECIES.
Some animals are evolving today. These changes take thousands of years to even begin to notice. If you were present when hominids were evolving you would see one hominid, not changing, existing at whatever its development was. If you came back 2 million years later you might see some slight changes. If you leave Earth now and come back in 2 million years if it's still here you will see clearer examples of evolution.

We didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys right now are not under large pressure to change.
The tree animal we evolved from is believed to be a forest mammal where the plains were taking over. So walking was a needed survival trait. But it worked out and brought other benefits that allowed us to continue.

How To Speed Up Evolution: Switch Goals
Nadav Kashtan, Elad Noor and Prof. Uri Alon of the Institute's Molecular Cell Biology and Physics of Complex Systems Departments create computer simulations that mimic natural evolution, allowing them to investigate processes that, in nature, take place over millions of years. In these simulations, a population of digital genomes evolves over time towards a given goal: to maximize fitness under certain conditions.

Like living organisms, genomes that are better adapted to their environment may survive to the next generation or reproduce more prolifically. But such computer simulations, though sophisticated, don't yet have all the answers. Achieving even simple goals may take thousands of generations, raising the question of whether the three-or-so billion years since life first appeared on the planet is long enough to evolve the diversity and complexity that exist today,

Yes and if you included the next few paragraphs you would see they figured out a way that evolution could be vastly sped up, and they said this may be pervasive in nature? So that completely solves the issue and makes your post a half truth or a deliberate misleading anti-evolution post. Why the need for a false narrative? Very suspicious?



Evolution takes place under changing environmental conditions, forcing organisms to continually readapt. Intuitively, this would slow things down even further, as successive generations must switch tack again and again in the struggle to survive. But when Kashtan, Noor and Alon created a simulation in which the goals changed repeatedly, they found that its evolution actually speeded up. They even found that the more complex the goal -- i.e., the more generations needed reach it under fixed conditions -- the faster evolution accelerated in response to changes in that goal.

Computerized evolution ran fastest, the scientists found, when the changes followed a pattern they believe may be pervasive in nature. In previous research, Kashtan and Alon had shown that evolution may often be modular -- involving adjustments to standard parts, rather than wholesale remodeling. They theorized that the forces acting on evolution may be modular as well, and for each goal, they defined subgoals that could each change in relation to the others.

'In an organism, for example, you might classify these subgoals as the need to eat, the need to keep from being eaten, and the need to reproduce. The same subgoals must be fulfilled in each new environment, but there are differences in nuance and combination,' says Kashtan. 'We saw a large speedup, for instance, when we repeatedly exchanged an 'OR' for an 'AND' in the computer code defining our goals, thus changing the relationship between subgoals.'

 

[joelr]

The answer is still, because you descended from an Irishman.
Why are people not descending from apes, monkeys, or the imagined common ancestor?
The answer - Because man didn't descend from any of them.

Wh can't man reproduce this process in any lab?
Because it never happened.

The radiation works on a fly and modifies a few features. the babies had different color eyes and even bulging eyes. Some had curly bristles or NO bristles. Yes radiation can effect mutations. We are not going to do it with people and produce disfigured people?

...and @ChristineM And if christians evolved from Jews then why are there still jews?
Because ... um. Christians evolved from Jews? That's so wrong.

That is exactly correct. Through religious syncretism religions evolve. Judaism took on Persian myths (messianic world savior virgin born who would come to save humanity, revelations, God vs Satan) and Hellenistic religious myths (national God becomes Supreme God, souls that are fallen can be redeemed by a savior and return to heaven which isn't just Gods dwelling place but now it's the home of all souls who joined the cult, all races welcome, salvation becomes priority, a son/daughter of the main God undergoes a passion to defeat death, baptism, eucharist...) and evolved to Christianity, that last of the mystery religions.

The time machine wouldn't work even in a billion years, as every time lapse video shows man's ability to speed up any process.
evolutionary changes can be produced 150 times as fast by the use of X-rays as they can by the ordinary processes of nature.

The Speed of Mutations
According to "Molecular Biology of the Cell":
Only about one nucleotide pair in a thousand is randomly changed every 200,000 years. Even so, in a population of 10,000 individuals, every possible nucleotide substitution will have been "tried out" on about 50 occasions in the course of a million years, which is a short span of time in relation to the evolution of species. Much of the variation created in this way will be disadvantageous to the organism and will be selected against in the population. When a rare variant sequence is advantageous, however, it will be rapidly propagated by natural selection. Consequently, it can be expected that in any given species the functions of most genes will have been optimized by random point mutation and selection.

According to the book "Evolution," by Ruth Moore, it is possible to speed up mutations with radiation:

This paragraph is saying evolution takes time but there is enough time for it to work. Not sure why you posted it? Even though a variant is rare, it does happen and when it does it will rapidly be propagated. Showing evolution is sound.

But wow, that's interesting. You post scholarship when you think it works for your beliefs. But when the entire consensus of a field doesn't support your beliefs then scholars are all "bias" or just "wrong".
Huh?

 

[night912]

Why are people not descending from apes, monkeys, or the imagined common ancestor?

The answer - They are.

Wh can't man reproduce this process in any lab?

They have.

 

[metis]

Please spare me the hypocritical behavior metis. I did answer your question(s)

It is not I who is being hypocritical.

What was the question?
A. If we are supposedly designed by an "intelligent creator", then why are there so many miscarriages and birth defects?
B. How do you explain miscarriages & birth defects if God supposedly made each of us directly?
C. how God made it all
D. whether He ultimately made all

Both A and B were answered.
If your profile said something other than "Christian", I would take you serious. I know a Christian would not ask these questions.
An unbeliever would, or one now learning, but not a Christian.

No! You never answered the question, namely if God directly created all, then why are there miscarriages and serious birth defects. You never answered-- period, and now you question whether I'm a "true Christian"? That's judgementalism on steroids that Jesus taught us to avoid. I didn't stoop so low so as to do that to you.

Why would you expect to see Adam and Eve during the Cambrian Explosion, if you really did read the Bible... especially Genesis?

I taught it both at a Church [which I still do], a synagogue, and in my comparative religions course. The serious question is how we view the Creation accounts [there's 2 of them btw], more as history or more as being allegorical?

You know, I don't feel like playing your game, when you repeatedly display that behavior.
Whom are you trying to impress?

I dislike when people lie, which you have done by refusing to answer why there are miscarriages and birth defects if God supposedly make us directly. All you do is to dance around it while resorting to highly judgmental accusations. Thus, your claim that you answered that question is nothing short of being a bold faced lie, and that is not what Jesus taught is morally acceptable.

The Bible answers your questions. Are you saying you don't know that, or you don't accept the Bible's answers?

Anyone who's seriously into theology, Christian or otherwise, well knows that two intelligent and well-versed people can read the same scriptural narrative but come out with some different conclusions. But you clearly are not such a person.

So, if you want to be dishonest and also some sort of know-it-all that insists that only his/her opinion counts, that your choice, but it's not mine. This post ends our conversation, so post what you want so as to feed your ego, I guess.

Either way, I do wish you & yours a Happy Easter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you think?

The question wasn't to me, so what I think doesn't matter. Do you think that you cannot claim the existence of your ancestors back 20 generations even if you do not know them. It isn't proof they existed, but there is evidence.

I mean, if you think it’s a possibility that you won’t need food and water to continuously survive, then maybe by your parameters I didn’t.

The possibility exists, but I have never tested myself on that and I doubt, based on evidence, that I would survive it. But that is not proof. It involves evidence and the potential for testing.

But the evidence indicates that you would, and I did.

Yes, there is evidence supporting the claim that lack of food and water will lead to eventual death. You survived death by extreme starvation and thirst?

And there’s all kinds of evidence for a designer.

Then present and the explanation that demonstrates a designer is the only logical and reasonable conclusion from that evidence. No one else ever has done it.

I believe without it, but it would be nice to see some of that evidence and the explanations and arguments that define it as evidence for a designer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you accept. admit, and believe that chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and humans emerged (evolved) from what is purportedly acknowledged as an "Unknown Common Ancestor"?

I accept that the evidence supports this.

Do you deny things on the basis of logic, reason and evidence or just because the conclusions make you uncomfortable and you have no real understanding of them?

Is it your belief that God wants us to deny reality or not understand the world around us?

 

[nPeace]

Look for the text. Are you not creative?

Ciao

- viole

I wrote the text. there is no need for me to look for it. You on the other hand didn't seem to read it, since you badly misrepresented what it said.

 

[nPeace]

Because they are based on observable, tested facts, and are built on science?

Ha Ha.
You think too highly of your assertions, and never can quote anything that supports what you say.
Ha.

Then address my points. Don't pretend you don't understand them, don't misrepresent them, don't dodge them, and stop construct straw men.

Anything I have not addressed is a waste of finger tapping. I didn't want to do that. Finger tapping exercises I don't need them.

What is the sense of responding to someone who is just going to say things like "you just believe on blind faith." or "it's just your imagination."?
Responding is not going to make them listen to reason. Especially when they think listening to themselves is cool, because every assertion they make is true.

 

[nPeace]

Come on. You can't possibly be so obtuse. Did you really miss my point so completely, or are you just intentionally misrepresenting and deflecting?
I was differentiating natural from artificial; a natural biological and chemical process from planned, intentional manufacture.
Can you really not see the difference between fermentation and engineering?

Are you trying to make me attack your intelligence?
I think you are. It's not working.

A planned process is mixing particular element to accomplish a desired goal.
Those elements or components work toward the intended goal, because they were purposefully put together.

If you take yeast and put it in a bowl, it will not rise and become edible cake.
Bread is manufactured.
Oh my head.

 

[Valjean]

And there’s all kinds of evidence for a designer.

I hear this over and over again from believers, but, thus far, all the "evidence" has proved factually incorrect or illogical. The same evidences are adduced, and debunked, over and over.

 

[Valjean]

Understood currently how they arose? No, they are not.
Be honest. How they change, yes; but how they began? No!
The current understanding is full of “explanatory deficits.”

But change is what we're arguing about. OK, if you want to move the goalpost, or, in this case, completely change the game, fine. We can talk about origins.

Creationists or IDers have no explanation, all they do is insist on an agent and that an agent is necessary. They have no support for either of these premises.
They claim something came from nothing -- apparently by magic.

Scientists don't claim to understand the process/processes completely, but they do not believe that something came from nothing or that magic was involved; and they don't see a need to adduce a creator-personage. Ordinary, observable processes seem be quite sufficient.
Many of the steps have already been observed, and ordinary chemistry explains them completely. No planning, intention, or magical manipulation required.

You’ve been indoctrinated, supposing facts where there’s only speculation.

Projection.
It's you who've been indoctrinated. It's you who can cite no need or evidence for your claim of magic or a magician.

Your opinion is not the product of critical analysis of observed facts. It does not involve known physical processes. It's an appeal to magic.
Your opinions are those of your family and community, installed long before you possessed any logical firewalls or rational ability to assess them.

My opinions are the result of critical analysis of observed, not 'supposed', facts. They're explanatory, demonstrable, and have stood up to every attempt to disprove them.

 

[Valjean]

We see purpose, by their interaction.

I know that. Me, I see function.
So you believe there is intelligent planning, intention and purpose in chemistry; that life was intentionally manufactured by an intelligent yet undetectable personage.
I see alternate, non-magical explanations.

Amazing y’all miss this.

We didn't miss it, we just see no evidence for it, or any need for it as an explanation of observed reality.

Just by observing interactions between organisms… there is a balance that’s quite obvious.
There is always prey for the predator. Why? Since survival is the best pressure, prey animals should quickly evolve fangs, talons, poison their flesh, whatever is needed to stop those hunters.

The complex interactions and evolution of useful features do not require magical manipulation to explain. Science can explain them with familiar chemical and biological processes. The fact that you are unfamiliar with these processes is not evidence they do not exist.

But we don’t see that. The balance is maintained. Rodents have been around for eons.

The fact that they've been around for eons indicates they've successfully evolved effective counter-measures. The fact that you can think of more and better -- yet unrealized -- counter measures, is evidence of lack of planning or intentional design.

If the ‘gene is selfish’, it’s mutations wouldn’t maintain the equilibrium we observe.

Selfish gene? Who's talking about selfish genes? You keep moving the goalpost.
Have you even read Dawkin's book? Do you understand selfish gene theory?
Selfish gene theory doesn't negate natural selection.

Selfishness does nothing but disrupt, and brings disorder & chaos.

Well, that answers my above question. You do not understand the hypothesis.

You won’t want to believe this, but the evolution of the genome that we do observe, is of Divine origin, and has Divinely-set limits. IMO.

So you say, yet you can't empirically defend this position. It's a house built on sand, with no evidence supporting it that cannot be explained by ordinary, observed mechanisms

I will explain my thoughts, later… I’m tired.

OK.

 

[Valjean]

The radiation works on a fly and modifies a few features. the babies had different color eyes and even bulging eyes. Some had curly bristles or NO bristles. Yes radiation can effect mutations. We are not going to do it with people and produce disfigured people?




That is exactly correct. Through religious syncretism religions evolve. Judaism took on Persian myths (messianic world savior virgin born who would come to save humanity, revelations, God vs Satan) and Hellenistic religious myths (national God becomes Supreme God, souls that are fallen can be redeemed by a savior and return to heaven which isn't just Gods dwelling place but now it's the home of all souls who joined the cult, all races welcome, salvation becomes priority, a son/daughter of the main God undergoes a passion to defeat death, baptism, eucharist...) and evolved to Christianity, that last of the mystery religions.





This paragraph is saying evolution takes time but there is enough time for it to work. Not sure why you posted it? Even though a variant is rare, it does happen and when it does it will rapidly be propagated. Showing evolution is sound.

But wow, that's interesting. You post scholarship when you think it works for your beliefs. But when the entire consensus of a field doesn't support your beliefs then scholars are all "bias" or just "wrong".
Huh?

There are multiple mechanisms of evolution, and significant change can occur relatively quickly given the right conditions.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm thinking of manipulation, the finger of God, placing one stone upon the other, intentional intervention.

And that is not necessarily true except in the vast equation of putting the mechanics together. What I mean by that is that He started the process. And allows it to continue.

The mechanics are truly not understood. That is where you are going wrong in your thinking. It is true that burning wood can produce ashes, smoke in the sky that hurts lungs among other things, the mechanics can be investigated but not truly understood. If you tell me they are, I'll tell you that is not realistic thinking. But! as my aunt says, "That's how it goes..."
Now the question has come up as I glean the "New Scientist" -- how long is infinity? Hmm..."scientists" have a quandry in deducing that. Or a good time I suppose.
"Mathematicians have long known infinity comes in many sizes, and a 150-year-old mystery known as the continuum hypothesis may explain how they relate to each other." (Isn't that interesting...lol, sorry I tend to laugh sometimes at certain situations.) https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ew&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NSNEW_140422
Furthermore, I can only imagine in a sci-fi piece that beetles (?) or wait! maybe monkeys wonder about infinity. (Oh, by the way, I used to work for a science publication.)

 

[YoursTrue]

There are multiple mechanisms of evolution, and significant change can occur relatively quickly given the right conditions.

OK, but what about radiation? The poster brings up a good point about mutations. Although x-rays can be used properly, and yes, I take x-rays, and yes, I respect the science behind it, many of 'us' (doctors and researchers included) are rightly concerned about getting too many x-rays possibly causing harmful effects.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are multiple mechanisms of evolution, and significant change can occur relatively quickly given the right conditions.

significant change quickly? Like from the Unknown so-called "Common Ancestor" of bonobos, chimps, gorillas, and of course, the latest -- humans?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

False. He was concerned with what the truth was. You are conflating honesty and an agenda. By the way, in the sciences one must be ready to admit that there is a possibility that one was wrong. That is all that he did. Those not interested in the truth were shown to be the ID believers. They were not using evidence for their conclusions.

My goodness. I showed you what Judge Jones himself wrote, that “ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position,” and you’re still trying to get around his own words.

And regarding Gerd Müller’s statement about the MS’s “explanatory deficits”… I give you the means to find the entire article, just so you won’t accuse me of quote-mining his statements, but you accuse me of quote-mining, anyway!

Here, I found a link:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13752-014-0179-6.pdf

I’m through with addressing your unreasonable accusations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My goodness. I showed you what Judge Jones himself wrote, that “ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position,” and you’re still trying to get around his own words.

And regarding Gerd Müller’s statement about the MS’s “explanatory deficits”… I give you the means to find the entire article, just so you won’t accuse me of quote-mining his statements, but you accuse me of quote-mining, anyway!

Here, I found a link:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13752-014-0179-6.pdf

I’m through with addressing your unreasonable accusations.

Yes, you showed me it. So what? You did not understand what his point was. As to Gerd, I did your homework for you. He does not appear to be reliable source.

By the way, I made no unreasonable accusations. You have quote mined in the past and your quote of Jones was a quote mine itself.