Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

Evolution hasn't slowed. Where do you get your information?

Has it been studied for a hundred years? Show me the new life form, please.

I am not talking about a "species". Sometimes one species appears to be the same as another.

Just show me one. Please let it not be a fly. A fly form to another fly form doesn't count to us stupid people.

 

[savagewind]

In a hundred years there isn't a show of evolution. I call that slow. You don't?

Oh, but there is a show. It is in a lab. With tools. Minds. A microscope and WOW now that fly has different DNA!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's right. Millions of years for change to be obvious in three to a hundred million different species.

A generation in one species might be counted in days and in others fifty or more years.

I'm afraid that you'll need to be a little more explicit with me. Weren't we discussing whether there had been enough time passed for a common ancestral cell to have formed and then evolved into the tree of life we see around us today?

Someone estimates there may have been 7,500 generations of humans. We are still human.

The theory says that our gene pool and the alleles present and their relative frequencies have changed over those 7500 generations. Just when you choose to call some human being's offspring the first non-human seems a little arbitrary and meaningless. I'm still not getting what you are asking or saying. Is this a criticism of evolutionary theory?

 

[Cobol]

Before abiogenesis organic molecules could accumulate your rough chemical processes since there would be no consumption. Since life is now wide spread, any primordial soup would be a rich nutrient source for existing life and rapidly consumed.

Present day envirement conditions are very different from when the original abiogenesis took place.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know the answer. There wasn't enough TIME.
Haha, so I am going on sixty. I am not unwilling. I don't have enough time.

I hope that I didn't offend you. If so, I apologize. I was being frank. We seldom change at our ages (I'm a little older than you, but close). If you weren't a lover and student of science before, you likely won't be now. Do you disagree?

 

[savagewind]

I'm afraid that you'll need to be a little more explicit with me. Weren't we discussing whether there had been enough time passed for a common ancestral cell to have formed and then evolved into the tree of life we see around us today?

Yes. I think six billion years is a short time for every species ever to have existed to have evolved blindly. I do not believe in the kind of design that @Deeje espouses, but I have to believe that design has had something to do with it. I can't believe some kind of trial and error function did it. There wasn't enough time in my opinion.

The theory says that our gene pool and the alleles present and their relative frequencies have changed over those 7500 generations.

OK. Sooner or later there should be a branching off. A new species from this human species. When if ever do you think that will happen? It sure would prove evolution. Wouldn't it? OMG. Maybe that is what ancestry.com is doing! Are they looking for a new species?

Just when you choose to call some human being's offspring the first non-human seems a little arbitrary and meaningless.

What does this mean?

I'm still not getting what you are asking or saying. Is this a criticism of evolutionary theory?

Someone thinks that the human species appeared two million years ago. No new species in two million years. Isn't that slow?

 

[savagewind]

Present day envirement conditions are very different from when the original abiogenesis took place.

LOL. That would take faith to believe. Wouldn't it?

 

[savagewind]

I hope that I didn't offend you. If so, I apologize. I was being frank. We seldom change at our ages (I'm a little older than you, but close). If you weren't a lover and student of science before, you likely won't be now. Do you disagree?

Science is about being right. I like to be right. Does that count?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Things can't exist without a cause. Are you joking?

I thought that you said that the god that created the universe was itself uncaused. I answered that if it is possible to exist without a cause, what do we need a god for? Isn't that what gods are there to explain - why reality exists? That's a god's main job and its sine qua non: universe creation. If it didn't do that, why are we talking about it or calling it a god?

I'm saying that if things like a god can exist uncaused, then simpler things like a multiverse can, and that removes the need for a god. The multiverse hypothesis competes with the god hypothesis, and has the merit of being more parsimonious in the sense of Occam's Razor.

I mentioned that our different upbringings have brought us to disparate worldviews and different ways of thinking at this point creating a gap that probably can't be bridged. We should recognize that and not not have emotional reactions to one another's opinions. You seem to be becoming agitated. There is no need. I am sincere and trying to be constructive.

 

[Cobol]

LOL. That would take faith to believe. Wouldn't it?

No.....science doesn't require faith.

 

[savagewind]

I thought that you said that the god that created the universe was itself uncaused.

You heard right. of course, God isn't a "thing".

I answered that if it is possible to exist without a cause, what do we need a god for? Isn't that what gods are there to explain - why reality exists? That's a god's main job and its sine qua non: universe creation. If it didn't do that, why are we talking about it or calling it a god?

I'm saying that if things like a god can exist uncaused, then simpler things like a multiverse can,

Simpler than what? Are you calling god which you do not believe in complicated?

and that removes the need for a god. The multiverse hypothesis competes with the god hypothesis, and has the merit of being more parsimonious in the sense of Occam's Razor.

But, God is the simplest explanation. Why are you calling The God complicated?

I mentioned that our different upbringings have brought us to disparate worldviews and different ways of thinking at this point creating a gap that probably can't be bridged. We should recognize that and not not have emotional reactions to one another's opinions. You seem to be becoming agitated. There is no need. I am sincere and trying to be constructive.

Thank you. I don't often get people to talk to. I might call it excited, but not agitated.

I was not taught to believe in God. It is my opinion that people who have suffered in this life are the people who go looking for God. It is what the World did to me that caused my search. I do believe that a person has to want to find God to find God. I want to and it appears that you do not want to.

 

[savagewind]

No.....science doesn't require faith.

You say the conditions were right then for life to appear just because. That takes faith, imo.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Prove it. I have looked it up and what I see is them talking about something different. I think it HAS NOT been estimated how many changes have occurred in DNA to get us where we are.

As I said, it is my opinion that you are too far behind jump in here and now. Many scientific questions must remain unanswered for you. That's reasonable.

But hey - I'm in the same boat in mathematics. I would love to know more - all of it, really. But at this point, it's not going to happen. Self-teaching in that area has been unsuccessful, I don't have access to competent instruction, and I can see that I am stuck where I am.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ya but, it is GOD who originated the physics for that.

I have no reason to believe that, and I don't believe things without a reason.

 

[savagewind]

As I said, it is my opinion that you are too far behind jump in here and now. Many scientific questions must remain unanswered for you. That's reasonable.

But hey - I'm in the same boat in mathematics. I would love to know more - all of it, really. But at this point, it's not going to happen. Self-teaching in that area has been unsuccessful, I don't have access to competent instruction, and I can see that I am stuck where I am.

That would be cool if it was I who added them up. Good idea! Unfortunately, I entered college in the era of lower middle-class women go into teaching, office work or nursing. I like chemistry, so I chose nursing, because, like I said, I am a stupid person. Can anyone imagine me a nurse? LOL

I might have discovered something much more useful than God.

 

[Valjean]

Before abiogenesis organic molecules could accumulate your rough chemical processes since there would be no consumption. Since life is now wide spread, any primordial soup would be a rich nutrient source for existing life and rapidly consumed.

Present day envirement conditions are very different from when the original abiogenesis took place.

I think you're taking the 'soup' analogy too literally, and the conditions that gave rise to life originally may still exist.
The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor : Nature Microbiology

Yes. I think six billion years is a short time for every species ever to have existed to have evolved blindly. I do not believe in the kind of design that @Deeje espouses, but I have to believe that design has had something to do with it. I can't believe some kind of trial and error function did it. There wasn't enough time in my opinion.

But species don't evolve blindly, and there's more to natural selection than 'trial and error'. I believe you're arguing from ignorance and from incredulity.

Creationist apologists usually advance their case by undermining one or more aspects of the ToE. They don't usually proffer actual supporting evidence for intentionality. Theirs is a false, either-or dilemma.

Consider what's being proposed: They claim the mechanisms of evolution to be inadequate, while at the same time proposing magic performed by an invisible personage as a (the) credible alternative.

OK. Sooner or later there should be a branching off. A new species from this human species. When if ever do you think that will happen?

I'm not holding my breath. Humans are tribal and don't like competition. There used to be several species of hominin, now only one remains, and we seem to be bent on eliminating the remaining great apes, as well.

Someone thinks that the human species appeared two million years ago. No new species in two million years. Isn't that slow?

Some species remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, others change practically overnight. Selective pressures vary.

But, God is the simplest explanation. Why are you calling The God complicated?

But God's not an explanation, just a magical agent.

You say the conditions were right then for life to appear just because. That takes faith, imo.

Inasmuch as life did appear, I'd say the assertion was pretty much incontestable.

 

[gnostic]

We are in a thread about evolution. Evolution can't be without cause.

What do you think Natural Selection about, savagewind?

The cause of evolution through Natural Selection is due to to adapting their environment, so the population of species can produce offspring that are more fit than previous generations and future descendants have change enough to be consider new species.

Changes are often small, incremental and progressive.

The polar bears for instance, was derived from species of the brown bears.

In order, to survive both the last Ice Age and to continue live in polar wasteland for the last 10,000 years, the polar bears developed physically to thrive in freezing conditions.

They differed from brown bears, physically in many ways:

• They have thicker fur that make it better insulation from the freezing winds and waters (sea).
• They have and retain more body fat, which also insulate them better in the cold than brown bears, and that due to their main food diets being sea seals.
• Due to both fur and body fat, they have the ability to hunt in the coldest season, without the need to hibernate.
• Both fur and body fats m
• And the white fur are far better natural camouflage in the icy region than bears with brown fur.

All of these natural hereditary traits are what make the polar bears different from the brown bears, black bears and grizzly bears.

But the changes didn't occur overnight, or by magic or by miracle, but by many generations of small changes, and the environment of their habitat was one of many possible factors for those changes.

And the changes didn't because of some sorts of "divine being"; the changes to the polar bears were natural, and certainly not random, nor was it an accident.

 

[savagewind]

But species don't evolve blindly,

My first thought was, "leave him alone and let him have the last word", but here I am! I hear you saying that evolution can see. Do we agree that there is no mind involved? Evolution has no mind. Right? But, it can see. Haha

 

[savagewind]

What do you think Natural Selection about, savagewind?

I am pretty sure it is about cause and effect. Did you hear me say something different?

 

[savagewind]

Is evolution a mind, or minds? I know it isn't, but someone says that it isn't blind, so I am asking.