Is Evolution really all there is????

[Bird123]

YES! It is amazing what hunger and cold can do for one's will to live.



What does being stylish, and growing third arms to be so, have to do with this discussion?

And how exactly does an evolutionary/or extinction event, have to be good?

And they are all for a reason. Whatever, - or whoever, - dies, is because they were not equipped to survive the specific event.

If a huge meteorite hits earth and most humans die, - except those living high in mountains such as the Andes Mountains (people with evolutionary modifications such as bigger lungs and larger red blood cells, meaning a greater surface area for oxygen absorption,) and still getting some sunlight and cleaner air/oxygen at that height, resulting in the evolution of all humans to having big lungs and larger red cells; is this a good reason event?

They just happened to have the right lungs and conditions to survive an extinction event.

*

One can always come up with, what if, scenarios, thereby the third arm. From the past actual results, things have ended up better. If great intelligence is behind it all, one can assume things will be for the better.

 

[Ingledsva]

One can always come up with, what if, scenarios, thereby the third arm. From the past actual results, things have ended up better. If great intelligence is behind it all, one can assume things will be for the better.

You need to re-read that.

They survive by modification chance. Not God.

It is not "What if." - It is small adaptions which lead to survival in an extinction event. And of course there can also be big extinction events. Think of the dinosaurs. only a few kinds survived.

We don't see a bunch of third arm adaptions out there - waiting for an extinction event - that gives better results to people with a third arm. What even would that be?

We do see bigger lung, bigger red blood cell adaptions, out there - which could lead to survival in a known possible extinction event, - large meteorite, - super volcano, etc.

We saw bird beak adaptions which led to their survival while the others of the same species died - in the Galapagos Islands.

These are normal modifications which led to their surviving the extinction event - and passing on their genes.

*

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

On the other hand, I do understand what you were saying, adaptation depends on any given stimulus. It must, however all add up. I don't see people growing a third arm just to be stylish. There must be good reasons for the adaptations to occur.

It doesn't work like that.

There is no "stimulus" that spurns some unknown force or "intelligence" called "evolution" to say, "Oh wait. My environment has changed. Hmmm. What am I going to do about this?" So therefore, "It must, however, all add up" is a false statement; as well as "There must be good reasons for the adaptions to occur". If it "must' all add up to you, then that means that you see a "purpose" behind benign and/or random events. This is a philosophy not shared by the skeptic.

There is not a "good reason" for the adaptions to occur; though there are "good reasons", dependent upon environment, why certain mutations (adaptions) continue and are passed down to successive generations; and others do not.

 

[Valjean]

Reproductive variation and mutations occur all the time. In a well adapted population they may have little effect, but if the environment changes these same variations might prove useful and they'll suddenly proliferate through the population.

 

[Bird123]

It doesn't work like that.

There is no "stimulus" that spurns some unknown force or "intelligence" called "evolution" to say, "Oh wait. My environment has changed. Hmmm. What am I going to do about this?" So therefore, "It must, however, all add up" is a false statement; as well as "There must be good reasons for the adaptions to occur". If it "must' all add up to you, then that means that you see a "purpose" behind benign and/or random events. This is a philosophy not shared by the skeptic.

There is not a "good reason" for the adaptions to occur; though there are "good reasons", dependent upon environment, why certain mutations (adaptions) continue and are passed down to successive generations; and others do not.

Each has the ability to choose how they define good reasons or bad reasons. Personally, the Results are the most important to me. As I look around this world, I see things turned out really really well.

As for random events, when the intelligence gets high enough, one can see order in chaos. It is hard for one to see that it all adds up if one does not see the entire picture, especially if one does not wish it to add up.

 

[Bird123]

You need to re-read that.

They survive by modification chance. Not God.

It is not "What if." - It is small adaptions which lead to survival in an extinction event. And of course there can also be big extinction events. Think of the dinosaurs. only a few kinds survived.

We don't see a bunch of third arm adaptions out there - waiting for an extinction event - that gives better results to people with a third arm. What even would that be?

We do see bigger lung, bigger red blood cell adaptions, out there - which could lead to survival in a known possible extinction event, - large meteorite, - super volcano, etc.

We saw bird beak adaptions which led to their survival while the others of the same species died - in the Galapagos Islands.

These are normal modifications which led to their surviving the extinction event - and passing on their genes.

*

Well now one can point to beaks and lungs, however let's not forget the intelligence factor which can overcome much. As mankind's IQ grows, it will become much harder to extinct. Further if mankind's humanity stays strong, mankind could carry the entire lot. On the other hand, intelligence will bring genetic engineering which will lead mankind into choosing their own adaptations. It will be a real game changer.

Is it really Doom and Gloom. Extinction events are used to shape the final masterpiece. Now you say few dinosaurs made it. What about the theory that the dinosaurs are still here? They are now Birds.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well now one can point to beaks and lungs, however let's not forget the intelligence factor which can overcome much. As mankind's IQ grows, it will become much harder to extinct. Further if mankind's humanity stays strong, mankind could carry the entire lot. On the other hand, intelligence will bring genetic engineering which will lead mankind into choosing their own adaptations. It will be a real game changer.

When the Super-Volcano under Yellowstone Park explodes, - intelligence won't mean squat to that extinction event.

Estimated 90,000 dead in seconds, - a ten foot layer of molten ash 300 to a 1000 miles from the epicenter, - Sulfuric gasses will mix in the atmosphere into our water vapor, we will have temperature drop, darkening of the sky, - plants and animals will die, etc.

Is it really Doom and Gloom. Extinction events are used to shape the final masterpiece. Now you say few dinosaurs made it. What about the theory that the dinosaurs are still here? They are now Birds.

Ummmm? Why do you think I said a few made it? The majority died, some evolved into our birds.

*

 

[Valjean]

Well now one can point to beaks and lungs, however let's not forget the intelligence factor which can overcome much. As mankind's IQ grows, it will become much harder to extinct. Further if mankind's humanity stays strong, mankind could carry the entire lot. On the other hand, intelligence will bring genetic engineering which will lead mankind into choosing their own adaptations. It will be a real game changer.

Intelligence might not be a very selective feature, in the end. Our species has only just made an appearance on this planet and already our cleverness has initiated a sixth Mass Extinction Event and a proposed new geological epoch. We may well be the most pernicious and monumentally unsuccessful species ever to hit the planet.

Perhaps all is not lost, though. Intelligence no longer confers an adaptive advantage. Clever people are no longer raising more children to maturity than dullards, and bright ideas and technology now spread instantly throughout the population. Mean IQ is decreasing.

Like eyes in a cave fish, metabolically expensive but no longer useful features tend to atrophy over time. If we can revert back to a Homo habilis' mentality before things collapse completely there may be a chance...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Each has the ability to choose how they define good reasons or bad reasons. Personally, the Results are the most important to me. As I look around this world, I see things turned out really really well.

As for random events, when the intelligence gets high enough, one can see order in chaos. It is hard for one to see that it all adds up if one does not see the entire picture, especially if one does not wish it to add up.

Why are we discussing "good" reasons or "bad" reasons? My statements inferred that there were no reasons for the occurrence of mutations and speciation events. I realize that this idea and mindset are difficult to grasp when one has the presupposition of a reason behind everything. But for the sake of communication, please do try to wrap your head around that?

As far as "good reasons" for the continuation of a given mutation continuing to exist to be passed to successive generations, you are philosophizing something for which there is no philosophizing. In a bitterly cold environment, there is a very good reason why mutations that gave extra layers of fur and/or blubber continued to thrive to be passed down to successive generations. So let's not philosophize such a simple concept? Thank you.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Why are we discussing "good" reasons or "bad" reasons? My statements inferred that there were no reasons for the occurrence of mutations and speciation events. I realize that this idea and mindset are difficult to grasp when one has the presupposition of a reason behind everything. But for the sake of communication, please do try to wrap your head around that?

As far as "good reasons" for the continuation of a given mutation continuing to exist to be passed to successive generations, you are philosophizing something for which there is no philosophizing. In a bitterly cold environment, there is a very good reason why mutations that gave extra layers of fur and/or blubber continued to thrive to be passed down to successive generations. So let's not philosophize such a simple concept? Thank you.

And, those mutations that gave too many layers of fur or blubber were not "good" adaptations to the environment, either...unless the climate got colder, when those with less would likely die...and those with too little won't survive and pass along their gene variations unless the climate warms...but there will in a population likely always be those born with too much or too little for the current conditions, and who will not themselves survive to pass on their genes UNLESS the climate changes in the way that they will be more likely to survive...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As we look around us we see there is a process of unfolding going on. People are created from a few cells to grow into a person. Animals go through this same process. Plants and trees unfold from tiny seeds into massive complex structures.



If you were God with limitless intelligence, how would you create it all? Choice 1. With a Poof, it's all here. Choice 2 With an automated, unfolding, expanding universe that grows into complex structures, systems, and life forms all coming from a single point.



Which choice is more intelligent? Poof leaves one wonder of the how and why while choice 2 has life forms in the expansion able to watch and study the processes.



Evolution fits well into choice 2 unfolding. Some say everything is evolution and that the universe is nothing but evolution. Is that really true?



I'm sure in the early days, survival of the fittest played an important role in the development of people and animals. This leads to the question: Is evolution really all there is? After all with mankind's humanity, the fittest are not the only ones surviving today. All those couch potatoes are making it too. There must be other factors involved.

What do you think????

Since time as we know it, was created along with the rest of the universe; arguably choice 1 and 2 can coexist from God's perspective right?

i.e he created all time and space simultaneously. So in this sense he also created man in his present form.

We used to think the physical universe just happened to exist this way accidentally also, and by a few simple physical laws

We know better now with quantum mechanics, subatomic physics, everything was developed in distinct stages and according to highly specific instructions, describing exactly how great fusion reactors in stars would be assembled, and create and disperse the complex materials necessary for life. I see no reason to suspect that the development of that life is any different. That the process suddenly became blind and unguided at this point, and the result of a single species capable of appreciating all this creation from within.. yet one more staggering coincidence? millions of significant design improvements appeared spontaneously through lucky mutations? Not technically impossible I suppose, but I wouldn't bet on it!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

We used to think the physical universe just happened to exist this way accidentally also, and by a few simple physical laws

We know better now...

...millions of significant design improvements appeared spontaneously through lucky mutations? Not technically impossible I suppose, but I wouldn't bet on it!

Who is this "we" who "know better now?

Based on physics, chemistry, etc., the physical universe exists and operates through a relative handful of physical "laws," such as gravity, electromagnetics, quantum mechanics, conservation of matter and energy, and a handful of other forces/processes we've identified. "Used to think" and still do think, because that is what the evidence shows. In fact, there are just six numbers, six "constants," that define any and all of the material phenomena we can detect and observe in the universe.

As for your "millions of significant design improvements:" Your idea that because God created time along with space, therefore everything--including modern humans--were created all at once is nonsense. Time keeps everything from happening at once--so for humans to happen, millions of adaptations had to happen over a period of time.

Therefore, God did not create us just as we are at the beginning of the universe...unless your argument is that God also created the original and all the intermediary lifeforms at the same moment, and all we are doing is living out an entirely predetermined existence, without choice or free will.

"Lucky mutations?" Perhaps, in a sense. Mutations are random, adaptations occur based on several different selective pressures, and there is no goal for life except (in a very different sense) its continued existence and adaptation. But to assume/conclude that it's MORE LIKELY that Goddidit to create the complexity that we see, rather than that a handful of forces acting on atoms and matter (physics) and life (biochemistry) over billions of years according to rules we've been able to identify by carefully studying the universe? I would conclude THAT is much more likely than Goddidit. Evolution--change over time--occurred both with the atoms of the universe, becoming stars and planets, and with life, and resulted in millions of different species filling all the ecological niches on Earth. It is not only technically possible, all the evidence shows that it is indeed what has happened--the unfounded arguments of creationists notwithstanding. And yes, it is highly unlikely that we humans are here...there was nothing inevitable about humans coming into existence through entirely random processes...but here we are!

You can choose to bet on God doing it, but the evidence points to natural processes.
One can argue, of course, that God uses the laws of nature and evolution to create us, but that seems to be adding an unnecessary component to the explanation of the universe...an explanation that at the same time seems to rob humans of their ability to choose.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Who is this "we" who "know better now?

Based on physics, chemistry, etc., the physical universe exists and operates through a relative handful of physical "laws," such as gravity, electromagnetics, quantum mechanics, conservation of matter and energy, and a handful of other forces/processes we've identified. "Used to think" and still do think, because that is what the evidence shows. In fact, there are just six numbers, six "constants," that define any and all of the material phenomena we can detect and observe in the universe.

Table of universal constants[edit]


Symbol Value[8][9] Relative Standard Uncertainty
speed of light in vacuum

299 792 458 m·s−1 defined
Newtonian constant of gravitation

6989667408000000000♠6.67408(31)×10−11 m3·kg−1·s−2 4.7 × 10−5
Planck constant

6.626 070 040(81) × 10−34 J·s 1.2 × 10−8
reduced Planck constant

1.054 571 800(13) × 10−34 J·s 1.2 × 10−8


Table of electromagnetic constants[edit]
Quantity

• v
  
  
  • t
  • e

Symbol Value[8][10] (SI units) Relative Standard Uncertainty
magnetic constant (vacuum permeability)

4π × 10−7 N·A−2 = 1.256 637 061... × 10−6 N·A−2 defined
electric constant (vacuum permittivity)

8.854 187 817... × 10−12 F·m−1 defined
characteristic impedance of vacuum

376.730 313 461... Ω defined
Coulomb's constant

8.987 551 787... × 109 N·m2·C−2 defined
elementary charge

1.602 176 565(35) × 10−19 C 2.2 × 10−8
Bohr magneton

9.274 009 68(20) × 10−24 J·T−1 2.2 × 10−8
conductance quantum

7.748 091 7346(25) × 10−5 S 3.2 × 10−10
inverse conductance quantum

12 906.403 7217(42) Ω 3.2 × 10−10
Josephson constant

4.835 978 70(11) × 1014 Hz·V−1 2.2 × 10−8
magnetic flux quantum

2.067 833 758(46) × 10−15 Wb 2.2 × 10−8
nuclear magneton

5.050 783 53(11) × 10−27 J·T−1 2.2 × 10−8
von Klitzing constant

25 812.807 4434(84) Ω 3.2 × 10−10






lots more where this came from I can't fit in this post, but you get the picture..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As for your "millions of significant design improvements:" Your idea that because God created time along with space, therefore everything--including modern humans--were created all at once is nonsense. Time keeps everything from happening at once--so for humans to happen, millions of adaptations had to happen over a period of time.

from our perspective yes, but God is not bound by the laws he created. Similarly if a 'multiverse' created the universe, from an 'outside' perspective, all time in our universe exists concurrently as does all space.

Look at it this way, space keeps everything from happening in the same place right? but just because you can only occupy one place at a time, does not mean the others do not exist. So too with the dimension of time, it's just more difficult for us to conceptualize and travel freely in

Therefore, God did not create us just as we are at the beginning of the universe...unless your argument is that God also created the original and all the intermediary lifeforms at the same moment, and all we are doing is living out an entirely predetermined existence, without choice or free will.

a computer game may also incorporate it's own time, but the programmer does not become bound by it, and he necessarily first envisioned, conceived of all the elements long before they play out for the user.

this does not preclude our free will, again it's a matter of perspective- God knows how this movie ends, he directed it, we don't.

As for all the hypothetical intermediary lifeforms.. any luck finding those yet?

must run will answer your last part later...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Table of universal constants[edit]


Symbol Value[8][9] Relative Standard Uncertainty
speed of light in vacuum

299 792 458 m·s−1 defined
Newtonian constant of gravitation

6989667408000000000♠6.67408(31)×10−11 m3·kg−1·s−2 4.7 × 10−5
Planck constant

6.626 070 040(81) × 10−34 J·s 1.2 × 10−8
reduced Planck constant

1.054 571 800(13) × 10−34 J·s 1.2 × 10−8


Table of electromagnetic constants[edit]
Quantity

• v
  
  
  • t
  • e

Symbol Value[8][10] (SI units) Relative Standard Uncertainty
magnetic constant (vacuum permeability)

4π × 10−7 N·A−2 = 1.256 637 061... × 10−6 N·A−2 defined
electric constant (vacuum permittivity)

8.854 187 817... × 10−12 F·m−1 defined
characteristic impedance of vacuum

376.730 313 461... Ω defined
Coulomb's constant

8.987 551 787... × 109 N·m2·C−2 defined
elementary charge

1.602 176 565(35) × 10−19 C 2.2 × 10−8
Bohr magneton

9.274 009 68(20) × 10−24 J·T−1 2.2 × 10−8
conductance quantum

7.748 091 7346(25) × 10−5 S 3.2 × 10−10
inverse conductance quantum

12 906.403 7217(42) Ω 3.2 × 10−10
Josephson constant

4.835 978 70(11) × 1014 Hz·V−1 2.2 × 10−8
magnetic flux quantum

2.067 833 758(46) × 10−15 Wb 2.2 × 10−8
nuclear magneton

5.050 783 53(11) × 10−27 J·T−1 2.2 × 10−8
von Klitzing constant

25 812.807 4434(84) Ω 3.2 × 10−10






lots more where this came from I can't fit in this post, but you get the picture..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

as in https://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036732
All these other constants derive from the relationships among the six.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Lucky mutations?" Perhaps, in a sense. Mutations are random, adaptations occur based on several different selective pressures, and there is no goal for life except (in a very different sense) its continued existence and adaptation. But to assume/conclude that it's MORE LIKELY that Goddidit to create the complexity that we see, rather than that a handful of forces acting on atoms and matter (physics) and life (biochemistry) over billions of years according to rules we've been able to identify by carefully studying the universe? I would conclude THAT is much more likely than Goddidit. Evolution--change over time--occurred both with the atoms of the universe, becoming stars and planets, and with life, and resulted in millions of different species filling all the ecological niches on Earth. It is not only technically possible, all the evidence shows that it is indeed what has happened--the unfounded arguments of creationists notwithstanding. And yes, it is highly unlikely that we humans are here...there was nothing inevitable about humans coming into existence through entirely random processes...but here we are!

This argument made a little more sense 100 years ago, when we used to believe that a handful of superficial intuitive laws- classical physics, + a lot of space and time, were enough to account for all the wondrous physical reality we see in the universe- leaving no room for God's hand. To propose that deeper, more mysterious unpredictable forces, specific blueprints, instructions were required for such complexity... was the realm of 'religious psuedoscience'

A coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism?

But some still look at life in this same way today,- classical evolution, that a handful of superficial laws + space and time were enough for a single cell to accidentally mutate itself into a human being.

You can choose to bet on God doing it, but the evidence points to natural processes.
One can argue, of course, that God uses the laws of nature and evolution to create us, but that seems to be adding an unnecessary component to the explanation of the universe...an explanation that at the same time seems to rob humans of their ability to choose.

Similarly I can refute the need for ID being involved in making a watch, by showing you a fully automated watch factory. But this only increases the odds of ID being involved. The factory is even more difficult to explain by chance than the watch.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

from our perspective yes, but God is not bound by the laws he created. Similarly if a 'multiverse' created the universe, from an 'outside' perspective, all time in our universe exists concurrently as does all space.

Look at it this way, space keeps everything from happening in the same place right? but just because you can only occupy one place at a time, does not mean the others do not exist. So too with the dimension of time, it's just more difficult for us to conceptualize and travel freely in






a computer game may also incorporate it's own time, but the programmer does not become bound by it, and he necessarily first envisioned, conceived of all the elements long before they play out for the user.

this does not preclude our free will, again it's a matter of perspective- God knows how this movie ends, he directed it, we don't.

As for all the hypothetical intermediary lifeforms.. any luck finding those yet?

must run will answer your last part later...

Oh, so we're characters in a full-immersion video game...that is one possibility...good luck proving that...Or the deity that is outside of the universe knows and controls everything that is inside, but is not inside...

...and, I suppose we can argue all the traditional arguments and evidences for and against the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God, but really, I'm not at all interested in that discussion yet again...You believe in an incomprehensible omnimax deity and believe He/She/It/Them just creating everything is "more likely" than natural change over time, according to the laws of nature we have found. Okay. I think your reasoning is flawed, but to each their own.

...intermediary lifeforms? That's what fossils are. And there are other traces in the biology and genetics of all living things....

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This argument made a little more sense 100 years ago, when we used to believe that a handful of superficial intuitive laws- classical physics, + a lot of space and time, were enough to account for all the wondrous physical reality we see in the universe- leaving no room for God's hand. To propose that deeper, more mysterious unpredictable forces, specific blueprints, instructions were required for such complexity... was the realm of 'religious psuedoscience'

A coincidence that Max Plank was a skeptic of atheism?

But some still look at life in this same way today,- classical evolution, that a handful of superficial laws + space and time were enough for a single cell to accidentally mutate itself into a human being.



Similarly I can refute the need for ID being involved in making a watch, by showing you a fully automated watch factory. But this only increases the odds of ID being involved. The factory is even more difficult to explain by chance than the watch.

The watch and factory is completely explainable by evolution...gradual change over time in technology up to the point someone can design a watch and a factory to make them. It didn't just happen overnight, it took all of human history and civilization to create that watch...and the factory where they are manufactured. We can go find historical evidence of the development of time-tracking machines, and the development of the technology of making such devices to wear on the human body.

But no one, ever, just waved their metaphorical hand and suddenly there was a watch. And while some people might have conceived of mechanical timepieces to wear on the wrist or attached to clothing, it was not until the technology advanced sufficiently that anyone actually built one.

Seems to me that the watchmaker analogy supports evolution a lot more than it does creation...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh, so we're characters in a full-immersion video game...that is one possibility...good luck proving that...Or the deity that is outside of the universe knows and controls everything that is inside, but is not inside...

...and, I suppose we can argue all the traditional arguments and evidences for and against the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God, but really, I'm not at all interested in that discussion yet again...You believe in an incomprehensible omnimax deity and believe He/She/It/Them just creating everything is "more likely" than natural change over time, according to the laws of nature we have found. Okay. I think your reasoning is flawed, but to each their own.

...intermediary lifeforms? That's what fossils are. And there are other traces in the biology and genetics of all living things....

"ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time" David Raup

There are countless possibilities involving ID

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, sees no inherent barrier to us figuring out out to make our own universe, and that it is possible that this is how our own universe came to be- an experiment in an 'alien universe'..

Atheism, fundamentalist naturalism/materialism- is just one possibility among many and I don't rule it out. But it presents a unique paradox:

That the laws of nature must ultimate be accounted for by.. those very same laws.



re. probability If a gambler plays 5 royal flushes in a row, do suspect random chance or ID behind this?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, sees no inherent barrier to us figuring out out to make our own universe, and that it is possible that this is how our own universe came to be- an experiment in an 'alien universe'..

So, if we create our (and please do note the plural that you have introduced here) own little universe, will we know everything that occurs in it? Will we have little aliens all saying of us, "Wow! God sure is big and created everything in an instant just like we see it? And revealed himself to some wandering tribe in a desert...and so on?

You're saying "US," as in limited humans, would become literally GOD for those living inside the universe we created...And that "it is possible that this is how our own universe came to be..."...so it's possible our universe was created by beings who really aren't omnipotent, omniscient, etc., and might be not one but a collective...

Certainly it's possible...but it's also possible that the various Hindu accounts of creation and the nature of the universe are also true, or the Shinto, or the stories of the Dreamtime told by Australian Aborigines, or...

There are literally thousands of stories of creation told by humans...but it's more likely that YOUR preferred version is the truth than any of the others, and apparently, especially than the ones based in evidence collected about the nature of the universe...