If Evolution Were True

[Autodidact]

Apparently I have. This started here:

You seemed to have jumped in, not to address this but to try and point out how what I believe is wrong. I've been having fun running you around the block with that and am quite willing to continue if you need the excercise.

We have a term for this in the world of the internet:

 

[Alceste]

I believe ethics and morality can be explained by societal survivability. As we are societal creatures, unlike the chimps you mentioned, mass infanticide would be contrary to our survival as a society. For a better comparison to primates, look at the gorilla, a societal creature who is very loyal to it's tribe and compassionate among its own. The chimp, however is selfish, he kills anothers child so that he can implant his own seed in the mother.
Humans, as a whole, have passed on traits that contribute to our morality, and help us to better live as a society. And no, we are not a perfect society, we have many members who violate our code of ethics and harm our societies.
But then, the human body has not evolved perfectly either.

Chimps aren't "societal creatures"? Where on earth did you get that from? To be clear, nobody actually knows what the purpose of infanticide and cannibalism in chimp populations is. (There is also infanticide by females, BTW, not just males.) The theory that makes the most sense to me is that the chimps might perceive some genetic defect in the infant, and killing it is a way to ensure the health of the group.

I only brought chimps up because they are our closest genetic relative, but if you prefer gorillas, they'll do just as well.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any mammal that doesn't have its moments of "unethical" brutality (either as a victim or perpetrator).

 

[RemnanteK]

“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” Dr. Seuss

I love this quote.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

"Education is the key to the future - if you own a college". - Ed Bluestone

This is one of my favorite quotes.


I'm not sure that it has anything to do with this thread, but since we were on a roll ...

 

[Magic Man]

Oooo, and I love this one:

"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious." - Brendan Gill

This is fun.

 

[Autodidact]

Apparently I have. This started here:


You seemed to have jumped in, not to address this but to try and point out how what I believe is wrong. I've been having fun running you around the block with that and am quite willing to continue if you need the excercise.

That's O.K.; it was educational for all concerned. Among other things, we learned that there is not a shred of evidence in favor of the magical poofing theory of special creation, that sandy has no idea why he or she believes what he or she does, except for the Bible, which he or she objects to being discussed, that he or she is too rude to answer a simple, courteous question about whether he or she is a he or a she, and that all of his or her apparent objections to ToE have been answered, but he or she continues to believe in the Biblical version, apparently because it make him or her happy, even though he or she acknoledges that is bears no apparent correlation to reality.

Now, I am still interested in learning more about evolution so I am still looking forward to your offerings for the math behind evolution and the direct evidence of a genus change I've been asking for. Fantome may get there first and to be quite honest he seems to have gotten the gist of what I'm asking for a lot better than you have. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and and your own agenda.

No thank, I prefer to converse with people who are sincere, not just running me around the block for their own entertainment.

I certainly have an agenda--I'm grossly in favor of reality, and take every opportunity to advocate for it.

 

[themadhair]

"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know."
-Bertrand Russell

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know."
-Bertrand Russell

Nice quote. I just wanted to say that we have a huge wall hanging in our school canteen with this quote on it

GhK.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Oooo, and I love this one:

"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious." - Brendan Gill

This is fun.

Amen and Amen.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Chimps aren't "societal creatures"? Where on earth did you get that from? To be clear, nobody actually knows what the purpose of infanticide and cannibalism in chimp populations is. (There is also infanticide by females, BTW, not just males.) The theory that makes the most sense to me is that the chimps might perceive some genetic defect in the infant, and killing it is a way to ensure the health of the group.

I only brought chimps up because they are our closest genetic relative, but if you prefer gorillas, they'll do just as well.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any mammal that doesn't have its moments of "unethical" brutality (either as a victim or perpetrator).

Interesting, this is the first I have been aware or this behavior being observed in Gorillas. Thank you for making me aware of this. Reading the article, I noticed the mothers and infants affected were from a separate tribe that had been assimilated. The male killed the infants not fathered in his own tribe, thus promoting his own societal group.
As for chimps, they live together, but their attitudes are very self centered. The group is not as societal as gorilla families and groups. And humans are more societal than apes.
Humans too, can commit atrocities such as genocide, infanticide, and rape. We are not to far from our ancestors and relatives. However, the code of ethics we have developed has allowed us to come a lot further in our development and advancement. Although atrocities have been, and continue to be committed, humans as a whole find this behavior destructive to society.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think we've progressed well beyond that. Your original question was, "If evolution is true, why don't we see...?"And the answer was: We do. Thus your original objection was overcome way back at the beginning of the thread.

Let’s see, the question, I believe, was why don’t we still see new forms of life springing from the base elements. Painted Wolf answered it rather well in one post. And, by the way, the answer was “We don’t.” You have your own agenda here that keeps you off track of what I was asking and where I’m going.

Me neither. But every time I ask you what your position is, you point me to the Bible.

Once again, when I ask you what happened, you refer me to the Bible, and that's the end of your inquiry. I find this more than strange. Remember, the onus is on you. You're trying to overthrow a scientific consensus. In essence, you're pointing to one of the most robust and well supported theories in the history of science, a huge advance in human knowledge, and saying, "That doesn't sound right to me. True, I have no idea what is right, or what's wrong with it, but I think it's wrong because it's not consistent with my holy book, which, however, I don't want you to talk about." To advance scientific knowledge, it's not enough to say you have a hunch that theory is wrong, you need to say what evidence contradicts it, and then what you think is right. You have failed to do either.

Here, since you keep pointing to the Bible, I'm just trying to figure out whether your hypothesis is even consistent with the Bible. According to you, God "spoke" (magicked) the various genera into existence, at an unspecified date, and all evolution is of new species within that genus. So, for example, then, God did not speak lions and tigers into existence separately, but some unknown progenitor of both, which evolved since that unknown date into lions and tigers, right? But OTOH, God "spoke" thousands of different genera of beatles into existence. That's what you're saying, right?

I've bolded two important parts of your post. It seems like you're saying:

I get my position from the Bible.
The Bible doesn't match reality.
But I believe it anyway.

Is that right? Because that seems really weird to me.

Let me simplify this for you. Evolution happened and I believe the Bible. I know that trips your circuit breakers but perhaps that’s why you’ve never found God, He’s just too incomprehensible for you.

Are you trying to be evasive, or can't you help it? HOW LONG AGO????

IN THE BEGINNING!!!!

Is this what you meant to say? That the Biblical account does not match up with reality?

Why can’t you figure this out? I said it clearly in a number of my responses. I’ll repeat it for you; the Biblical account does not match the natural world. You would prefer that the natural world is all there is to reality.

My bad, I thought you were referencing the Bible. So we'll just go for genera from now on. If I understand your position, it's that new species evolve, but no new genera, right? Just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Let me make this clear for you as well, I was messing with you, trolling if you like, tweaking your expectations, exercising your willingness. Others figured out long ago what I was doing and I admitted to it, yet you persisted, ignorantly or stubbornly. You seem to respond with blinders on. Maybe this will help: I did say, “That I was attempting to match the two up in a small way is turning out to be kinda lame. I may need to reverbiagize my paradigm.”

Beneath that, I understand what you're saying. Yes, we see new species evolve, but it just seems counter-intuitive that an amoeba could evolve into a redwood tree. What I would say is that most scientific advances are counter-intuitive--that's why we need the scientific method to figure out what's really going on. The world does not match our preconcieved ideas.

To use a simple example, it is extremely counter-intuitive to me that the earth is round, is spinning rapidly, and revolving at a high speed in an oval. Say what?!?! It is not. It's staying right in one place here under my feet, and actually it's pretty flat. Isn't that obvious? It just turns out to be wrong. It doesn't account for all the data. A few hundred years ago, some really smart guys figured out that it was wrong. Using the scientific method, they figured out what is actually correct, and it doesn't matter a whit that it doesn't seem right to my preconceived "common sense." btw, Christianity fought long and hard to hold on to their preconceived, Biblical version.

Same with your version, derived from the Bible and your preconceived common sense. It doesn't seem like it would work. But think it through. You've told us that new species evolve, other new species evolve from them, and others from them. If you can't point to some stopping point, some limit, and why, then what you then have is a new genus.

After all, genus is really an arbitrary scientific category, the place where Biologists draw the line for convenience, not something that absolutely exists in nature. It's like the gradations from white to black along the gray scale. You can call 5 gradations a species, 10 gradations a genus, and 50 gradations an order, but it's still just one spectrum. If you keep moving along it, you get from white (amoeba) to black (redwood tree) without ever observing a jump from off-white to medium gray. It's all very, very, gradual. We have to look at the totality of the evidence to get the big picture. According to ToE itself, you will never observe a genus to genus jump.

If you think of it like a tree, every species emerges as a twig. Later it grows bigger, and more twigs branch off it. After a while, it's a genus (branch) rather than a twig (species.) But you never see a branch springing out a tree; always a twig. So what we observe (new species arising) is exactly what ToE predicts we will observe.

Finally, back on topic.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think we've already seen that we have different standards of courtesy. Where I come from, refusing to answer a direct, polite, questions such as "Are you male or female?" is considered extremely rude.

And “where I come from” failing to glance up at the little symbol in the corner under gender shows considerable laziness and/or lack of foresight on your part. That you would refer to me as he/she and later in the diminutive, I actually surmise it to be something else, part of your lack of courtesy.

It will be lengthy and time-consuming and may have to wait a bit.

I’ll wait. In this I am not just yanking your ya-ya.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, it doesn't. Many Biblical passages directly contradict each other...

And that NEVER happens in science

... and people who believe the Bible have to reconcile that. Biblical scholars, that is, people who actually study the Bible, use the scientific method to try to figure out who wrote which passages, what their cultural background was, what the correct translation is, and so forth. There is not a Christian in the world who uses a method remotely similar to scientific consilience to study their Bible.

A topic for later discussion

Don't take my word, check it.

But, but, I’m having too much fun having you do it.

What your irrelevant anecdotes actually point out is how good the scientific method is at rooting out and eliminating the resuls of bias.

Ahh, finally, you admit science can have it’s own bias

You do understand that science is a method, not a subject, right?

It’s both.

And the purpose of the method is to minimize the impact of bias of every kind? Do you agree that it does that better than any other method we have ever devised?

Sure.

As I say, creationists are anti-science. That is why groups like AIG are liars; they dress their anti-science up in lab coats.

I think you would go so far to say that anyone who believes the Bible is a liar. You have your bias we have ours.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We have a term for this in the world of the internet:

I never denied it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

And that NEVER happens in science

Yes it does, and Scientific Method works to eliminate the the contradictions and reveal the truth. "Bad Science" or mistakes are eliminated. Many great discoveries have been made in the attempt to disprove a theory, or to find out why a contradiction exists.
Take for example the discovery of neutrinos. A contradiction existed in a mathematical formula explaining physics. Scientist knew that their was a missing piece, but could not observe it. they theorized a particle that was neutral and had no energy or mass. Years later in an attempt to find the missing contradiction, neutrinos were observed, and the contradiction was solved.
Science is mutable. The scientific method ensures this.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes it does, and Scientific Method works to eliminate the the contradictions and reveal the truth. "Bad Science" or mistakes are eliminated. Many great discoveries have been made in the attempt to disprove a theory, or to find out why a contradiction exists.
Take for example the discovery of neutrinos. A contradiction existed in a mathematical formula explaining physics. Scientist knew that their was a missing piece, but could not observe it. they theorized a particle that was neutral and had no energy or mass. Years later in an attempt to find the missing contradiction, neutrinos were observed, and the contradiction was solved.
Science is mutable. The scientific method ensures this.

I agree. I was being facetious.

 

[themadhair]

Let’s see, the question, I believe, was why don’t we still see new forms of life springing from the base elements.

This question has nothing to do with evolution or evolutionary theory. The reason, I suspect, for Autodidact regarding you as being less than sincere is probably due to you regurgitating creationist talking points such as this one.

To actually answer the question for you, what makes you think this isn’t happening? Organic molecules are all over the shop so it would seem to me to be quite likely that new forms of self-replicating systems do arise. The reason they don’t propagate is because they are out competed by modern biological systems (systems that have undergone 3.8 billion years of evolutionary development). The steps from simple organic molecules to self-replicating systems to genetic-based self-replicating systems (I use genetic to signify trait inheritability) to the first self-replicating cell isn’t an overnight process even if ideal conditions were present. The resources required for these steps are at a premium on modern earth due to the prevalence of life already in competition for those resources. This is to do with abiogenesis, which is based on chemistry, and nothing to do with evolution which presupposes life’s existence.

Read the wikipedia article on evolution and, in particular, read the evolution FAQ that wikipedians produced to answer creationist misconceptions such as this.

Evolution happened and I believe the Bible. I know that trips your circuit breakers but perhaps that’s why you’ve never found God, He’s just too incomprehensible for you.

You do realise that a central tenant in modern evolutionary theory, namely that of common descent, disagrees with the literal account of genesis right? You do realise that the field of geology has disproved the biblical claim of a worldwide flood right? You do realise that studying the development of language has shown the towel of Babel story to be false don’t you? You do realise that the genealogy of the bible has been disproven by genetics? You do realise that the story of having only a few of each kind to repopulate the earth in a period of 4,400 years can be shown to be false by understanding allele distribution and mutation rates? You do realise that a literal interpretation of the bible is NOT compatible with most of modern science, let alone the theory of evolution?

If, like the majority of christians, you take biblical stories as metaphor your position would make sense. But, as evidenced by your referencing the genesis creation story, it is pretty clear you don’t.

I’ll repeat it for you; the Biblical account does not match the natural world. You would prefer that the natural world is all there is to reality.

Your comment accusing anyone of preferring &#8220;<i>that the natural world is all there is to reality</i>&#8221; is a total cop out when the problem you have is that the biblical account is simply not compatible with reality. Claiming six-day creation is no less incompatible with reality than claiming the earth is flat. The only solution you can fall back on here is to claim that your god, deliberately and wantonly, created the world rich in clues and evidences with the express intention of deceiving people.


Moreover - if the bible is so laughably wrong about the natural world why do think it would have credibility regarding any alleged non-natural one?

Let me make this clear for you as well, I was messing with you, trolling if you like, tweaking your expectations, exercising your willingness.

Unfortunately, creationism is so far removed from observational reality that it is impossible to know if a creationist is trolling.

And that NEVER happens in science

<comment retract after further comment>

Ahh, finally, you admit science can have it&#8217;s own bias

Science is biased towards evidence. If you want to argue that being biased towards evidence is a bad thing then have at it.

I think you would go so far to say that anyone who believes the Bible is a liar. You have your bias we have ours.

Anyone who takes the bible literally, despite the massive quantities of evidence to the contrary, is either ignorant or lying to themselves. There are plenty of &#8216;high-profile&#8216; creationists like Demski, Ham, Hovind, Luskin etc. who so frequently engage in quote-mining and deliberately misrepresenting science and scientific papers that you really have to wonder at their honesty. I am reminded when Demski &#8216;borrowed&#8217; that cell animation without Harvard&#8217;s permission trying to claim he obtained it from another source &#8211; despite his commenting on it six months previously.

But yes, we do have different biases. We towards evidence based reality and yourselves towards biblically based fantasy.

 

[Autodidact]

Let’s see, the question, I believe, was why don’t we still see new forms of life springing from the base elements. Painted Wolf answered it rather well in one post. And, by the way, the answer was “We don’t.” You have your own agenda here that keeps you off track of what I was asking and where I’m going.

From the OP:

Why do primitive forms of life not evolve into higher forms of life constantly through-out history?

Short answer (ignoring the gross misconceptions embodied in terms such as "primitive" and "higher,"): We do.

My only "agenda" is reality.

Let me simplify this for you. Evolution happened and I believe the Bible.

Sounds good to me, although I don't know why your posts say the opposite. At a minimum, you need to work on your communication skills. Because what you've told us, several times, is that evolution does not progress beyond the genus level. You have no reason whatsoever for believing that, but you believe it anyway.

I know that trips your circuit breakers but perhaps that’s why you’ve never found God, He’s just too incomprehensible for you.

Or maybe it's because He's not there. Just sayin'

IN THE BEGINNING!!!!

O.K., we see that you have good evasion skills. Of course, if your position was coherent, you wouldn't need them.

Why can’t you figure this out? I said it clearly in a number of my responses. I’ll repeat it for you; the Biblical account does not match the natural world. You would prefer that the natural world is all there is to reality.

I've got it, and I agree completely. The Biblical account does not match the natural world. I could have posted it myself. To me, that's synonymous with the Biblical account is incorrect. To you I guess it means the natural world is incorrect, or something. It's not a question of whether there's more going on--that's a subject for a different thread. In this thread, we're not arguing over whether there is a God, just about ToE. So the question isn't whether the Bible is correct about something or other else, just whether it's correct about nature. It isn't. So we're in agreement regarding this thread.

So far I've got three versions from you:
1. No new species ever evovle.
2. New species evolve, but no new genera.
3. Evolution happens.
These are mutually inconsistent. I'll tell you what, when you figure out what your position is, we'll discuss it, O.K.?

Let me make this clear for you as well, I was messing with you, trolling if you like, tweaking your expectations, exercising your willingness. Others figured out long ago what I was doing and I admitted to it, yet you persisted, ignorantly or stubbornly. You seem to respond with blinders on. Maybe this will help: I did say, “That I was attempting to match the two up in a small way is turning out to be kinda lame. I may need to reverbiagize my paradigm.”

Yes, I understand. I made the mistake of trusting you to have a sincere conversation, when in fact you were just trolling, which is why you contradict yourself, evade, are deliberately rude and generally not worth wasting time on, so in future I will not bother. If you ever decide to have a sincere conversation, let me know and I'll consider it.

 

[Autodidact]

And “where I come from” failing to glance up at the little symbol in the corner under gender shows considerable laziness and/or lack of foresight on your part. That you would refer to me as he/she and later in the diminutive, I actually surmise it to be something else, part of your lack of courtesy.

No, just ignorance. And just think all you had to do was tell me, which would only have required some basic manners. It would have gone something like this, "Autodidact, maybe you didn't realize that there's a gender symbol up in the corner there?" Thanks, though, for demonstrating for the thousandth time typical Christian behavior.

I’ll wait. In this I am not just yanking your ya-ya.

Let me get this. So far you've been yanking my chain, but you want me to spend hours presenting evidence for a theory that you accept, except when you don't, that you understand, except that you don't, because you believe that the Bible is accurate, except that it isn't, and I should trust that you're sincere in wanting this evidence presented to you. I'll think about it.

 

[Autodidact]

And that NEVER happens in science

No, not within a single book or theory. If it did, it wouldn't be accepted as a theory, would it?

A topic for later discussion

O.K. For now we'll just note the your assertion was in error.

But, but, I’m having too much fun having you do it.

Sorry, I don't enjoy other people having fun at my expense.

Ahh, finally, you admit science can have it’s own bias

No, not science, only scientists. I don't think you realize what science is. It's not a subject; it's a method--a method for minimizing bias and, by the way, the best one yet invented.

It’s both.

Not really. The only subject is the result of the method. You can get scientific about religion (but not God), people's minds, the weather, music, almost anything.

Sure.

so you agree that science is the best method ever devised for reducing bias, but your main point is to try to demonstrate that it's biased? Contradict yourself much. Yes, you do.

I think you would go so far to say that anyone who believes the Bible is a liar. You have your bias we have ours.

Why don't you let me decide what I would say. Or, here's a concept, ask me.

I think anyone who believes the Bible as a literal account of the natural world has a serious problem, as you'll agree, or at least the part of you that agrees that it isn't agrees. Different Christians resolve that problem differently. Professional creationists like those at AiG and ICR resolve it by lying.